A question for communists.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

Laissez-faire Capitalism in its purest form does not require that anyone's right to personal and private property be denied. In my opinion, the right to ownership is the most powerful natural right there is. Think about it; all crime is a variation of theft, the takeover of one's real and abstract possesions. Murder is stealing one's life, rape one's privacy. All other natural rights depend on the right to both real and implied possesion of things such as ideas, sexuality, etc...

[Czervenika]

Yes, because the bourgeois take the majority of the profits from the workers, and use money and the state to keep their position.

/notacommunist

But the if ideal communist worker prosperity is already guaranteed, then who cares about the rest of the profits? Is communism about ensuring everyone has top notch necessities, or about ensuring everyone has top notch luxuries?

The problem here is that communists see the ruling classes as inherently oppressive since their wealth is produced from the labour of others. When there's no longer a ruling class then naturally the wealth divisions would even out since there would be no ruling class to control the production of wealth for their benefit.

[Solaray]

Laissez-faire Capitalism in its purest form does not require that anyone's right to personal and private property be denied. In my opinion, the right to ownership is the most powerful natural right there is. Think about it; all crime is a variation of theft, the takeover of one's real and abstract possesions. Murder is stealing one's life, rape one's privacy. All other natural rights depend on the right to both real and implied possesion of things such as ideas, sexuality, etc...

Rape steals more than privacy, but overall, I agree.

[Blasveck]

Laissez-faire Capitalism in its purest form does not require that anyone's right to personal and private property be denied. In my opinion, the right to ownership is the most powerful natural right there is. Think about it; all crime is a variation of theft, the takeover of one's real and abstract possesions. Murder is stealing one's life, rape one's privacy. All other natural rights depend on the right to both real and implied possesion of things such as ideas, sexuality, etc...

Natural rights don't exist.

We only say they do.

[Solaray]

Laissez-faire Capitalism in its purest form does not require that anyone's right to personal and private property be denied. In my opinion, the right to ownership is the most powerful natural right there is. Think about it; all crime is a variation of theft, the takeover of one's real and abstract possesions. Murder is stealing one's life, rape one's privacy. All other natural rights depend on the right to both real and implied possesion of things such as ideas, sexuality, etc...

Natural rights don't exist.

We only say they do.

Well, that too, but property rights are quite important in my eyes.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Ok, think whatever you want. I sorta can't tolerate right-wing opinions. They seriously disturb me. Canadorian's unwarranted random opinions out of conjunction with the debate sometimes, even more. So I stop by here.

[Blasveck]

Ok, think whatever you want. I sorta can't tolerate right-wing opinions. They seriously disturb me. Canadorian's unwarranted random opinions out of conjunction with the debate sometimes, even more. So I stop by here.

Why the hate for right-wing opinions?

[Czervenika]

Ok, think whatever you want. I sorta can't tolerate right-wing opinions. They seriously disturb me. Canadorian's unwarranted random opinions out of conjunction with the debate sometimes, even more. So I stop by here.

A lot of the stuff they say I take quite personally tbh since I grew up in poverty, at least poverty by North American standards.

[Trotskylvania]

Laissez-faire Capitalism in its purest form does not require that anyone's right to personal and private property be denied. In my opinion, the right to ownership is the most powerful natural right there is. Think about it; all crime is a variation of theft, the takeover of one's real and abstract possesions. Murder is stealing one's life, rape one's privacy. All other natural rights depend on the right to both real and implied possesion of things such as ideas, sexuality, etc...

Trying to reduce everything to a single principle is a type of madness peculiar to the intellectually inclined.

The fact that you conceive of the world and human relations in terms of property is irrelevant. Property is a human social construction, and an anthropologically recent one at that. By trying to assign it to the sum total of human existence is just pure ideology.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

Ok, think whatever you want. I sorta can't tolerate right-wing opinions. They seriously disturb me. Canadorian's unwarranted random opinions out of conjunction with the debate sometimes, even more. So I stop by here.

A lot of the stuff they say I take quite personally tbh since I grew up in poverty, at least poverty by North American standards.

I grew up in poverty in post-Soviet Sochi Russia.

[Zottistan]

I don't see the relevance of the first sentence.

Needs, like in all other welfare states, would be defined by trained professionals. At an untrained estimate, running water is a need, lighting is a need, max welfare-provided house size of four bedrooms. Food would have to be calculated.

Well, the system would work. But I wouldn't like it.

Why not?

[Arumdaum]

What do you mean by 'needs?'

What you need for survival? Don't most people already have that?

What you need for a comfortable and happy life? How do we measure that?

[Galborg]

Laissez-faire Capitalism in its purest form does not require that anyone's right to personal and private property be denied. In my opinion, the right to ownership is the most powerful natural right there is. Think about it; all crime is a variation of theft, the takeover of one's real and abstract possesions. Murder is stealing one's life, rape one's privacy. All other natural rights depend on the right to both real and implied possesion of things such as ideas, sexuality, etc...

Capitalism in its purest form = Bosses have everything, Workers are deep in debt.

But it's OK because under Capitalism, Workers are Untermenschen, so we have no rights, so our rights cannot be denied because our rights do not exist.

[Indira]

To be an awkward bugger, wouldn't this render the whole system of capitalism null and void?

[New England and The Maritimes]

Nobody can "earn" wealth. Everyone plays a part that can't be decoupled and analyzed alone in all production of wealth, and the source of wealth cannot be legitimately claimed for exclusive use. Since this is true, anyone having more than the mean amount of resources must be engaged in exploitation and theft.

What about working longer than other people?

Does not matter. We all "earn" an equal share of wealth by virtue of being living thinking human beings with equally valid needs and desires.

[Vilkavis]

The bourgeoisie are an exploiting class, so yes.

I'm sure some slaves had access to those facilities - hell, I know some did - but that doesn't make slavery acceptable.

Further, due to capitalism's inherent contradictions and flaws, these rights will be unsustainable in a capitalist system. The inevitable recessions will ultimately see the destruction of the gains of the working class.

Communism isn't just about improving the lives of workers, it's freeing them from the destructive nature of capitalism.

[Mistelemr]

I would like to clarify a few things here. 1. Communism doesn't work towards the abolition of ALL private property. This is a common misconception and comes from the earlier Utopian socialists who did want to do just that. Communism seeks only to socialize the means of production i.e capital.

Yes, communism absolutely calls for the abolition of all private property. That is the single most basic principle of communism. The socialization of the means of production is the abolition of private property.

That will depend on how you define "the means of production" and "Private property". To me the means of production are purely and simply capital. This means any good that can be used to produce a string of products. For example, a tree is not capital, it is a consumable resource, but a forest is capital as it can regenerate a produce many goods. Productive machines are also considered capital.

In my definition at-least, this means you can own your own home, car, computer, etc. so long as it necessarily isn't "capital". And then there's the large question of the ownership of "human capital" to which I will say you can do what you want with your body, but the should be a cultural/social obligation to work if one possibly can.

[Mistelemr]

I would like to clarify a few things here.

1. Communism doesn't work towards the abolition of ALL private property. 2. This is a common misconception and comes from the earlier Utopian socialists who did want to do just that. 3. Communism seeks only to socialize the means of production i.e capital.

1. Yes, it does.
2. I am sensing that you are failing to distinguish between private and personal property here. Also some forms of communism (in particular those based more on Proudhon then on Marx) do want to abolish all property.
3. Which would be abolishing private property.

Honestly, Marx was always very careful to make the disticination and even a cursory reading of Communist Manifesto ought to make it fairly obvious.

I read the manifesto, and yet never came across such a distinction. Perhaps all those sleepless nights didn't pay-off in helping me understand it. I'll re-read it for that purpose, however I think we atleast have a basic understanding of what the other is saying. As well, it may be easier to respond to those more right-wing economically if we make the distinction just between capital and private property, since to them everything is private property, and personal property is not a term in their lexicon

[4years]

1. Yes, it does.
2. I am sensing that you are failing to distinguish between private and personal property here. Also some forms of communism (in particular those based more on Proudhon then on Marx) do want to abolish all property.
3. Which would be abolishing private property.

Honestly, Marx was always very careful to make the disticination and even a cursory reading of Communist Manifesto ought to make it fairly obvious.

I read the manifesto, and yet never came across such a distinction. Perhaps all those sleepless nights didn't pay-off in helping me understand it. I'll re-read it for that purpose, however I think we atleast have a basic understanding of what the other is saying. As well, it may be easier to respond to those more right-wing economically if we make the distinction just between capital and private property, since to them everything is private property, and personal property is not a term in their lexicon

Here, I'll help you out: "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."
By private property he clearly means bourgeois property has he has defined, ie. private ownership of the means of production. Marx viewed personal property as akin to a human right:"When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property." (both quotes are from the Communist Manifesto)

[4years]

1. Laissez-faire Capitalism in its purest form does not require that anyone's right to personal and private property be denied. 2. In my opinion, the right to ownership is the most powerful natural right there is. 3. Think about it; all crime is a variation of theft, the takeover of one's real and abstract possesions. Murder is stealing one's life, rape one's privacy. 4. All other natural rights depend on the right to both real and implied possesion of things such as ideas, sexuality, etc...

1. Yes it does: It requires the the right of the vast majority of people to control the means of production be denied. It requires the the rights of the anyone who doesn't have enough money for food, water, shelter, medical care, or clothing (etc.) be denied. It requires that the right of people to clean air, pure water, and an environment relatively free from pollution be denied. It requires that the right of the vast majority if people to have a say in how natural resources are used to be denied. That is a whole lot of property rights being violated.

2. It isn't a natural right, there are no such things as natural rights and property is an artificial construct.

3. That is ludicrous.

4. Once again, there is no such thing as natural rights; rights are a social construct. And once again, your absurd attempt to reduce everything to ownership is invalid.

[Disserbia]

If everyone had their needs guaranteed--transportation, good housing, food, clothing, utilities, maximum education, ect.--would you still see the need to abolish the wealthy as a class?

Yes. The bourgoisie is an inherently reactionary element of a society, and they would all make sure to disappear with that once they take roots in the power.

Or they would exerce influence as a foreign power and would destroy that for assorted reasons.

Or most in Earth wouldn't get this, because that definitely is not how capitalism works.

If it sounds like bigotry...

[Marketalia]

A question I have, incidentally, concerns this divide between private, public, and personal property.

What does this personal property include? A house? A house with a yard? Or just my shaving razor?

Suppose I find a way to turn my shaving razor/house/etc into a commodity which no one else has. Is it now public property, under communism?

Incidentally, your assertion that people are social and just want to sacrifice for their fellow human beings is completely wrong, at least in regards to me. I would not sacrifice anything to do something for my "fellow men" unless I got more out of it than I put in. There's absolutely no reason to do something like that, as it is not in my best interests. Sorry.

[New England and The Maritimes]

A question I have, incidentally, concerns this divide between private, public, and personal property.

What does this personal property include? A house? A house with a yard? Or just my shaving razor?

Suppose I find a way to turn my shaving razor/house/etc into a commodity which no one else has. Is it now public property, under communism?

Incidentally, your assertion that people are social and just want to sacrifice for their fellow human beings is completely wrong, at least in regards to me. I would not sacrifice anything to do something for my "fellow men" unless I got more out of it than I put in. There's absolutely no reason to do something like that, as it is not in my best interests. Sorry.

Personal property is property that you maintain through use. This can certainly be land; if you're currently working land nobody else can work that land at the same time, so it's your personal property maintained through use. If you let that land go fallow and someone else works it, it becomes their personal property because you've ceased your consistent use of the land and as such forfeited the personal property status that use maintained. This ought all handled with close communication between members of each community.

[Arglorand]

Incidentally, your assertion that people are social and just want to sacrifice for their fellow human beings is completely wrong, at least in regards to me. I would not sacrifice anything to do something for my "fellow men" unless I got more out of it than I put in. There's absolutely no reason to do something like that, as it is not in my best interests. Sorry.

I find it incredulously difficult to believe you have no people you care about and would make vast sacrifices to maintain their wellbeing. If you don't, well, I feel truly sorry for you, you having to live such a lonely and abandoned existence in such a vast world. Alone.

[Marketalia]

Incidentally, your assertion that people are social and just want to sacrifice for their fellow human beings is completely wrong, at least in regards to me. I would not sacrifice anything to do something for my "fellow men" unless I got more out of it than I put in. There's absolutely no reason to do something like that, as it is not in my best interests. Sorry.

I find it incredulously difficult to believe you have no people you care about and would make vast sacrifices to maintain their wellbeing. If you don't, well, I feel truly sorry for you, you having to live such a lonely and abandoned existence in such a vast world. Alone.

Well, according to what diagnostic tests there are, I am fairly lacking in empathy, while enjoying a very high feeling of well-being at most times. I do not feel lonely, and, if I did, it is a relatively simply matter for me to go out and find someone else - people seem drawn to me when I turn on the charm.