Not in China, it’s kinda like Canada. You don’t own the land you lease it. It’s yours until the government deems it not.
Edit: because yall ignorant
In Canada, private property ownership is called fee simple. Legally, you own the exclusive right to live on, modify, sell, or pass down that land forever. However, the ultimate radical title sits with the Crown.
In Marxism communism personal ownership is still allowed (you own your house and belongings etc.). What’s not is the control of the means of production or any property that lets its owner live off others’ labor, say factories, land, mines etc. by capitalists and argues that they should be the social or common property of the producers/workers.
The distinction between personal belongings and means of production is not at all clear-cut. In what flavor of socialism would I be allowed to own which dual-use goods? Examples:
My house and garden can be a place of production (for art, artisan goods, handicraft, foods, etc.).
May a musician own musical instruments or must he collect them from the warehouse of the local musical collective?
Computers and other electronics are classical dual-use goods. Do I have to share them with all kinds of people?
Cars and other vehicles. Are socialists going to emulate historical Albania in that cars are not allowed as personal property? Where will they draw the line? Are e-bikes allowed, or scooters, or freight bicycles?
My house and garden can be a place of production (for art, artisan goods, handicraft, foods, etc.).
That is not “letting the owner live off other people’s labor” it’s letting the owner live off their own labor. Do other people have to come over to your house and garden to make things? They should have their own house and garden. If they then want to come over to hang out and make crafts, then what would possibly be the problem?
May a musician own musical instruments or must he collect them from the warehouse of the local musical collective?
Again, so long as a type of tool is accessible to anyone, there’s no issue with someone owning their own set. Whether it’s a musician with an instrument or a plumber or a mechanic that owns their own tools, there’s not really a problem. Nobody’s going around confiscating everyone’s wrenches for some ideological reason.
Suppose there’s some very expensive instrument, say a massive pipe organ in some church. If that organ is not being used for profit, then it doesn’t matter, but if it is being used that way, then perhaps it would make sense if various musical groups were allowed to use it occasionally, since it might not be practical to ensure everyone has their own pipe organ.
Computers and other electronics are classical dual-use goods. Do I have to share them with all kinds of people?
In a modern economy where everyone has their own computer, that’s completely unnecessary. Suppose there’s some remote village somewhere where they only have one computer. In that case, surely it makes sense for access to be shared.
Cars and other vehicles.
Repeating myself a lot here. Socialists aim to make transportation accessible to everyone, which generally means investing in public transit. But there are cases where it might make more sense to make it easier for everyone to have a car, like a remote region where public transportation is less viable, or a situation where people already own cars. I think most socialists would favor a gradual phasing out of cars in favor of public transit for efficiency, accessibility, and environmental reasons. A socialist state that doesn’t already have cars probably wouldn’t prioritize them, but that depends on the material conditions (as I said about rural regions).
Socialists want to eliminate Private Property, which is to say property that generates capital: farms, factories, stores, etc. While retaining personal property. Stuff like you’re house, your tv, your toothbrush, etc.
Now, there are some exceptions to this. If you go to Cuba, you’d find that most of the agricultural land isn’t collectivised, but is rather owned by individuals or families, who’s interests are represented by a mass organization of small holding farmers.
The historical specificities of Cuba’s land reform process meant that Cuban socialism retained a sector of small scale private ownership, within a Socialist system.
The point Marx is making is that under capitalism, as much as they talk about private property being a fundamental natural right, the consolidation of capital means that most people never have the opportunity to access that supposed right, or reap its benefits
I’m a noob at this and I kind of dont understand. Could i still own a house or like a couple acres ? Or would there be no ownership?
Not in China, it’s kinda like Canada. You don’t own the land you lease it. It’s yours until the government deems it not.
Edit: because yall ignorant
In Canada, private property ownership is called fee simple. Legally, you own the exclusive right to live on, modify, sell, or pass down that land forever. However, the ultimate radical title sits with the Crown.
And the US? Try not paying property taxes on the land you “own” for a while and see how much you own that land compared to the government.
In China, the government can do the same to your house/land even if you pay all your “dues” timely.
Home ownership is a lot higher in currenntly existing socialist states than in their capitalist peers. Do what you will with that information.
In Marxism communism personal ownership is still allowed (you own your house and belongings etc.). What’s not is the control of the means of production or any property that lets its owner live off others’ labor, say factories, land, mines etc. by capitalists and argues that they should be the social or common property of the producers/workers.
The distinction between personal belongings and means of production is not at all clear-cut. In what flavor of socialism would I be allowed to own which dual-use goods? Examples:
That is not “letting the owner live off other people’s labor” it’s letting the owner live off their own labor. Do other people have to come over to your house and garden to make things? They should have their own house and garden. If they then want to come over to hang out and make crafts, then what would possibly be the problem?
Again, so long as a type of tool is accessible to anyone, there’s no issue with someone owning their own set. Whether it’s a musician with an instrument or a plumber or a mechanic that owns their own tools, there’s not really a problem. Nobody’s going around confiscating everyone’s wrenches for some ideological reason.
Suppose there’s some very expensive instrument, say a massive pipe organ in some church. If that organ is not being used for profit, then it doesn’t matter, but if it is being used that way, then perhaps it would make sense if various musical groups were allowed to use it occasionally, since it might not be practical to ensure everyone has their own pipe organ.
In a modern economy where everyone has their own computer, that’s completely unnecessary. Suppose there’s some remote village somewhere where they only have one computer. In that case, surely it makes sense for access to be shared.
Repeating myself a lot here. Socialists aim to make transportation accessible to everyone, which generally means investing in public transit. But there are cases where it might make more sense to make it easier for everyone to have a car, like a remote region where public transportation is less viable, or a situation where people already own cars. I think most socialists would favor a gradual phasing out of cars in favor of public transit for efficiency, accessibility, and environmental reasons. A socialist state that doesn’t already have cars probably wouldn’t prioritize them, but that depends on the material conditions (as I said about rural regions).
Socialists want to eliminate Private Property, which is to say property that generates capital: farms, factories, stores, etc. While retaining personal property. Stuff like you’re house, your tv, your toothbrush, etc.
Now, there are some exceptions to this. If you go to Cuba, you’d find that most of the agricultural land isn’t collectivised, but is rather owned by individuals or families, who’s interests are represented by a mass organization of small holding farmers.
The historical specificities of Cuba’s land reform process meant that Cuban socialism retained a sector of small scale private ownership, within a Socialist system.
The point Marx is making is that under capitalism, as much as they talk about private property being a fundamental natural right, the consolidation of capital means that most people never have the opportunity to access that supposed right, or reap its benefits