The definition of Communism is a Moneyless, Classless, Stateless society. The definition of Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Under those definitions a Communist society will inevitably qualify as Socialist but not every hypothetical Socialist society will qualify as Communist. But neither definition is directly about "Property" per se.
Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto acknowledged that Property is technically irrelevant to the definition but still argued that in our then current situation (January of 1848) abolishing Capitalism would require abolishing private property. And maybe that was correct in 1848 but given how much what ownership even means has functionally changed entirely since then, it's an issue that's worth revisiting.
Some Socialist thinkers like to make a distinction between "Private Property" and "Personal Property". What I'm focusing on in this post is more specific then either of those however, this is specifically about land, is it compatible with Communism or Socialism to allow individuals or families some sense of ownership of the land they live on or house the live in?
Land ownership can be compatible if it's regulated. If not all land is privately owned but rather preferably most is common land. If there is a limit to how much one person can own, but also a minimum, every person or family should own their own home, home ownership shouldn't be something you have to "earn". And any thing produced from that land should still be shared with the community.
People thinking of whether or not there is or isn't private land property as the key cornerstone to defining Communism is why people keep thinking Kalliopolis in Plato's Republic or Thomas Moore's Utopia qualify as Communist societies even though they are absolutely Class based societies.
And it's also why people think it's absurd for me to call modern Dengist China the most Capitalist nation on Earth, "they don't have private property", they have worse Labor laws then even the United States and a Market based economy, I really don't care who owns what, that's pure Capitalism.
But it's also why people think you can't describe the system The Bible depicts The Israelites as living under during the Judges period as a form of Socialism. These American Conservative Christians make a big deal out of how much The Bible talks about Property, however there were regulations on that property ownership that make it not compatible with the "Property Rights" philosophy held by modern Anarcho-Capitalists, Libertarians, Conservatives and Objectivists. The Gleaning rights, the Tithes, the Sabbatical year and Jubilee laws, all paint the picture of a society the prioritizes making sure everyone's needs are provided for.
That applies in turn to certain separatist Christian sects, like the Amish, Mennonites and Hutterites who descend from the Anabaptists, that some may allow individual ownership of the house you live in is irrelevant, they are all Anarho-Communist societies.
That leads us to John Locke, John Locke is often thought of as the father of Liberal/Capitalist conceptions of Property, but what he actually said was left unclear in many areas. James Tully in 1980 argued that Locke's views on Property can be compatible with Socialist values. Locke stressed the Labor Theory of Value, something which today only Socialists believe in unconditionally. Locke also clearly said someone's right to claim exclusive ownership of something was only valid if it didn't disadvantage someone else. I think the Left needs to stop letting Libertarians and Conservatives get away with claiming Locke exclusively for themselves.
Nicola Bonneville and Thomas Paine during the French Revolution proposed forms of Communism that involved regulated land ownership.
Also here's an official statement of the Communist Party USA that was active during the Cold War.
Many myths have been propagated about socialism. Contrary to right-wing claims, socialism would not take away the personal private property of workers, only the private ownership of major industries, financial institutions, and other large corporations, and the excessive luxuries of the super-rich.[35]
This Party's split from the solder Socialist Party USA was entirely that they were more pro USSR.
No comments:
Post a Comment