What is the difference between personal and private property?
Many anarchist capitalists have been asking and getting confused about this, today I will clear it up.
What is private property?
Private property is something you own but somebody else labors on and you gain some or most of it. For example the large business you work for, everything in it is private property. They only make money by having enough money to pay for it.
What is personal property?
Personal property is stuff that you use and own, simple as that. Your car, house, toothbrush, computer and furniture are all examples of this. Socialists and communists do not want to take this stuff.
Why do communists and socialists want to abolish private property?
We see the fact of working on something and getting a majority of what you produce taken away repulsive. You dislike taxes we dislike profit off the work of others, this includes taxes.
We call private property the means of production because that is what it is.
Before capitalists and feudalists got a hold of private property nobody owned it and everyone kept what they themselves produced. All we wish is to go back to a system where we keep what we make. Capitalists in opposing this oppose anarchism. Owning land and taking most of what somebody produces on it by force is not anarchist.
A slave is no less a slave if he gets to choose his master.
picture source : cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/a/alvimann/preview/fldr_2010_01_13/file3321263430049.jpg
In the capitalist system, you voluntarily entre into a contract in which you exchange a certain amount of labour for a certain amount of money... You will apply that labour to the capitalists means of production which he bought with is own money (which in the end, maybe decades or centuries ago, was made by work).
Everybody is free to go and buyhis own means of production and becoming self-employed.
Taking the means of production and putting them in the hands of government is theft, and will eventually not solve anything. Watch Venezuela for the results of such a policy.
Throughout the ages wage labour has existed, and throughout the ages, selfemployment has existed. Because of the ever larger capital investments which are required to build modern products, wage labour is becoming more and more important.
Don't like where this is going? Because the capitalists will own everything? That's the beauty of the sysem. Everybody is a capitalist, and everybody has a stake In iy. Whether it be your pension fund, or your private savings, you are undoubtedly invested in companies, you undoubtedly directdly or indirectly own means of production which others work on, while you work on means of production which are owned by others.
that was retarded no government in communism im not even going to read past that
WHy not try explaining? If you are talking about communism, I think of the Sovjet Union, Notrh Korea, Vietnam, CUba, etc,...
and without a doubt if governed correctly, there could be communist countries which would far more succesfull than these
I really do not see how you will be able to sustain communism in a governmentless anarchistic society,... since you will need people to voluntarily give up everything they produce above the average per capita production of the community.
This they will never do. They will gladly help neighbours, family, friends, but without government coercion, I do not believe that a communist society can exist.
So could you please explain to me how you would see such a system being maintained?
Well said @walkerlv -- I'm still waiting for some AnCom to explain to me how their ideal society is ever achieved without coercion. @loganarchy -- Wow, amazingly succinct yet detailed justification for capitalism via action axiom. I just got an education. Thank you.
go look up the definition communism has no state stopped reading after nk look up the definition of state capitlism
the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.
(From Wikipedia)
Yet I do not believe that you can achieve this without government coercion. I believe that capitalism is the natural order of things. I do not oppose capitalism, but I do not believe that without a government you could transition to a communist society.
Why is capitalism the natural order of things?
also if you want the natural order of things go to anarcho primitism
Anarcho Primitivism sets arbitrary boundaries on what is primitive. Capitalism is the natural order because of the action axiom.
All individuals engage in purposeful behavior towards the fulfillment of desired ends by economizing and applying the scarce means in their control towards those ends. Also, all individuals vary in preferences. This is a synthetic a priori proposition.
"[T]he proposition that humans act ... fulfills the requirements precisely for a true synthetic a priori proposition. It cannot be denied that this proposition is true, since the denial would have to be categorized as an action — and so the truth of the statement literally cannot be undone."
https://mises.org/library/doubt-action-axiom-try-disprove-it
Along with this, individuals naturally seek to maximize value by using the least amount of resources to accomplish the maximum amount of ends. This naturally means that we use technology as a means to maximizing a scarce resource like labor and time. So if AnPrims want to condemn agriculture, they must likewise condemn even stone age technology such as a sharpened stick used for hunting.
Both of these things are technologies that help economic actors maximize value and therefore an AnPrims arbitary standards of what is "natural" and "unatural" is arbitrary and therefore unnatural itself.
These economic principles are what allow prices to occur on the market as well which helps economic actors figure out what the most productive lines of production are.
The hardest thing in an economy is figuring out what to produce and how. Take building a railroad. The price mechanism on the market makes it so that actors can see that steel is cheaper than say platinum or gold for railroad ties. This is because the prices of gold and platinum have been bid up by other lines of production that need it more urgently. Without this pricing mechanism, communal central planning cannot figure out accurately what lines of production are most efficient for various resources. Therefore, anything other than capitalism is doomed to fail miserably on a grand economic scale.
Anarcho-Primitivism and collectivist anarchic ideas who are against private property ignore the fundamental idea that all economic action is human action.
I am not Marxist i am anarchist communist (hit reply limit below)
funny, you just said my post was retarded too. This is how you represent communism, by calling capitalism retarded and flagging posts? Are you 12? I'm not trying to insult you but I just want to know if you are 12 so I can take it easy on you if you are.
Put into economic terms "personal property" would be roughly equivalent to consumer goods, whereas "private property" would be equivalent to capital goods.
Consumer goods are generally the final product which gets produced through a production process. Examples would be food, housing, personal transportation.
Capital goods are generally only used for the production of other goods, either consumer goods or other capital goods. Examples would be tools, factories, raw materials.
The combination of labour with the correct capital goods can produce a much higher quantity and quality of goods (consumer or capital) than labour alone. E.g. fishing with a net catches more fish than just with your hands.
point?
If you're going to be debating with people it's important to know the terminology that each side is using otherwise there will never even be a true understanding reached regarding what you're even debating about.
As an AnCap, I have no direct issue with AnComs so long as they extend the same respect for personal direction as I afford them. Meaning, I will not interfere with an AnCom community if they decide to do create a community centered around their ideas that is voluntary. The problem (and maybe you are different from others) is that I have yet to meet an AnCom willing to leave me and property alone like would be willing to leave them alone.
I think the point at which AnComs get property wrong is in the concept of self-ownership. We own ourselves and control the scarce resource known as our body and if this true then we must be able to own and control other resources outside of the body in the environment we inhabit in order to exercise the self-ownership.
"The spurious logic of the dialectic is not open to the left-wing anarchists, who wish to abolish the State and capitalism simultaneously. The nearest those anarchists have come to resolving the problem has been to uphold syndicalism as the ideal. In syndicalism, each group of workers and peasants is supposed to own its means of production in common and plan for itself, while cooperating with other collectives and communes. Logical analysis of these schemes would readily show that the whole program is nonsense. Either of two things would occur: one central agency would plan for and direct the various subgroups, or the collectives themselves would be really autonomous. But the crucial question is whether these agencies would be empowered to use force to put their decisions into effect.
All of the left-wing anarchists have agreed that force is necessary against recalcitrants. But then the first possibility means nothing more nor less than Communism, while the second leads to a real chaos of diverse and clashing communisms, that would probably lead finally to some central Communism after a period of social war. Thus, leftwing anarchism must in practice signify either regular Communism or a true chaos of communistic syndics. In both cases, the actual result must be that the State is reestablished under another name. It is the tragic irony of left-wing anarchism that, despite the hopes of its supporters, it is not really anarchism at all. It is either Communism or chaos."
-Murray Rothbard
We can think on the implications of this natural right to one’s self by thinking on the other options if this idea was not true. We have two options beyond self ownership:
One class of individual has the right to own another class of people.
Everyone is entitled to an equal share of everyone else.2
The first scenario specifies that one class of individuals identifies as human while the class that is owned is considered “subhuman”. The owned class is entitled to none of the rights of the owner class because they really are not human. But the idea that the “subhuman” class is not human is incorrect because they really are human. Science has shown that all “people” are human on a genetic level and to say otherwise is to advocate for slavery by another name. Most “reasonable people” (and most people consider themselves “reasonable”) do not advocate for slavery. Therefore we can throw the first alternative to self-ownership away.
The second option, that each individual is entitled to the own an equal share of everyone else, is similarly false and even impractical. This is because this option assumes that society supersedes the individual, thus the collective is entitled to own you. But society holds no special place over the individual since society is itself dependent on the individual for its own existence. This is made clear by the fact that if the component parts (the individuals) disperse, so does society. Therefore, how can something like society that is dependent on the individual for its existence take precedence over that which it is subject to? Secondly, this is inefficient. Ethically, if each person is entitled to a piece of everyone else and therefore a piece of every resource, no individual could act without the consent of every other individual. People would die before consent could be given and this directly contradicts the idea that we can act in order to survive. Therefore we can throw the second alternative out as well. Pragmatically, logically and ethically the second option does not make sense.
where to begin
you get what you make that is all communism is
who's going to make the Ferrari?
what
nobody owned the means of production before capitalism and feudalism. They were taken from humanity and we take them back
Yeah but if you are taking property from someone who perhaps was the first user, you are claiming ownership of the fruits of someone's labor. If you do that, you are claiming their labor itself as yours. If you are doing that, you are claiming ownership of their bodies. That is slavery. Only the first user is the legitimate user. The only legitimate way to acquire resources is through homesteading it (being the first user), voluntary exchange, or voluntary gifting.
Just because you abolish private property does not mean you abolish scarcity or solve the economic calculation problem inherent in socialist and communist economic systems.
But the thing is resources are given based on how much labor went into it. so basically wrongo
So I'm a painter and artist for a day job. Say create a painting by applying the scarce means in my control towards creating the painting. Are you saying that if I sell the painting, you are entitled to a portion of the sales because you own just as much of the painting I created as I do? How does that work?
Do you have the right to use violence to appropriate such property as this from other people if they refuse you? What gives you this right and what separates you from the state in this regard?
Do we own ourselves or not? Our bodies are scarce resources, if we can own that then why are we not allowed to own and control other forms of scarce resources? How does communal ownership solve the problem of scarcity. Say there is good "X" and I wish to do "A" with it and you wish to do "B" with it. Both A and B are mutually exclusive so how do we decide who gets to use what without coming to blows if we do not have rules on private property demarcating such things?
They can decide it any way they wish. Only jobs that help humanity are paid. One can always find labor to do. if they can not both use on object it is anarchist they could simply switch off and work on something else and split the difference.
//Only jobs that help humanity are paid.//
How is what is beneficial determined? Especially if individuals are the source of all action and they all differ in desired ends?
So, there's not going to be any Ferraris?
What time period and location are you referring to when you say this?
"Before capitalists and feudalists got a hold of private property nobody owned it and everyone kept what they themselves produced." -- What time period are you referring to in this statement?