private property is a form of economic capital, it is a piece of property that can be used to generate profit and therefore is used in the exploitation of the proletariat, since communism is about removing exploitation and oppression it shouldn’t exist under communism
What of « private property » in the sense of a physical space or dwelling wherein an individual might expect and be entitled to privacy or rest away from others?
If all property is communal, it’s reasonable to expect that such a physical space or dwelling is managed by a central authority/committee?
As a communist, YMMV on this. But are we talking about how things should go in a socialist society - one that is "merely" a transition from capitalism to communism - or in the final goal of communism itself?
Generally speaking, personal property (your toothbrush and clothes) have nothing to do with the economical and political problem of property over the means of production. Though we could argue that even the cultural values of a communist society would be different; so maybe you'd lend your suit to a friend that is going to a party more easily, maybe you don't even own a suit because you could get one whenever you like from a communal wardrobe, maybe people wouldn't be that mad with suit thieves. Who knows? Even if personal property isn't the issue in the critique of capitalism, our attitude to it is part of a culture born under capitalism.
But land will always make things more complicated, because it's limited in many different ways - even now, if I was a millionaire, I could go nuts and donate 100% of my bank account to some charity, but moving out from home out be harder than that. So, what happens to land under a communist society? We don't know because we never got there. Such society would have to come up with their own solutions to it. Even a central authority isn't granted to exist under "true" communism. Just seems to me in no human society governed by reason there would be people who are homeless or living in substardard conditions if there is room to place them.
If you wanna see how "communist values" play out in a socialist society regarding land and emotional attachment to it, you should definetively read / watch / listen the splendid play "The Caucasian Chalk Circle" by Brecht. Most stage versions cut out the introduction, where soviet farmers are talking about how to distribute the land they got back after WWII. Just reading this introductory scene itself gives you a lot to think about it. Not that there is any clear answer to any of it.
anything that can great profit without you working i.e a building that you rent or a business you own that other people (without an ownership stake) work at
private property is a form of economic capital, it is a piece of property that can be used to generate profit and therefore is used in the exploitation of the proletariat, since communism is about removing exploitation and oppression it shouldn’t exist under communism
What of « private property » in the sense of a physical space or dwelling wherein an individual might expect and be entitled to privacy or rest away from others?
If all property is communal, it’s reasonable to expect that such a physical space or dwelling is managed by a central authority/committee?
As a communist, YMMV on this. But are we talking about how things should go in a socialist society - one that is "merely" a transition from capitalism to communism - or in the final goal of communism itself?
Generally speaking, personal property (your toothbrush and clothes) have nothing to do with the economical and political problem of property over the means of production. Though we could argue that even the cultural values of a communist society would be different; so maybe you'd lend your suit to a friend that is going to a party more easily, maybe you don't even own a suit because you could get one whenever you like from a communal wardrobe, maybe people wouldn't be that mad with suit thieves. Who knows? Even if personal property isn't the issue in the critique of capitalism, our attitude to it is part of a culture born under capitalism.
But land will always make things more complicated, because it's limited in many different ways - even now, if I was a millionaire, I could go nuts and donate 100% of my bank account to some charity, but moving out from home out be harder than that. So, what happens to land under a communist society? We don't know because we never got there. Such society would have to come up with their own solutions to it. Even a central authority isn't granted to exist under "true" communism. Just seems to me in no human society governed by reason there would be people who are homeless or living in substardard conditions if there is room to place them.
If you wanna see how "communist values" play out in a socialist society regarding land and emotional attachment to it, you should definetively read / watch / listen the splendid play "The Caucasian Chalk Circle" by Brecht. Most stage versions cut out the introduction, where soviet farmers are talking about how to distribute the land they got back after WWII. Just reading this introductory scene itself gives you a lot to think about it. Not that there is any clear answer to any of it.
That's called "Personal Property"
Different things
Would owning your own home be considered private property when it doesn't generate profit (you just live in it)?
I have another question because I am confused. What counts as Land that generates profit?
anything that can great profit without you working i.e a building that you rent or a business you own that other people (without an ownership stake) work at
It would not