![canstock18584549[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eO0pVqP.jpg "canstock18584549[1].jpg")
Why do modern leftists like to distinguish between "private property" and "personal property" in recent discourses. What is the philosophical or historical basis for the distinction between the two forms of property and is there any legitimacy to such a distinction? Isn't it all just private property?
Is an iMac private property or personal property? Is a car personal property? Why or why not?
Can you cite some examples of leftists making this distinction?
>>481747
I can't find it right now but a lot of Occupy protesters made that argument in defense of their Apple products.
Private property = capital
Personal property = not capital
>>481794
But everything is potentially capital since everything has value or the ability to generate wealth.
>>481794
personal property is private property.
>>481808
This is an issue of philosophy and history. Does a distinction between personal and private property exist in history?
>>481859
>A napkin can't be capital
Why not? What's stopping a society from establishing a system of currency based on napkins?
>Says who?
Who says personal and private property are separate and distinct?
>>481794
what about people who make code with a laptop and sell it? What about people who run their Ebay stores with their computer? What about the human body and mind? The source of all capital.
>>481901
>Why not? What's stopping a society from establishing a system of currency based on napkins?
Do you even know what capital is?
>>481901
Capital is the means of production you fucking eleven year old. Currency is not capital
>recent discourses
god damn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property
do people here not know how to read philosophy before they open their big dumb uneducated american mouths?
This thread can easily be turn into a historical one. Is there a communist/anarchist post-revolution society where such a distinction can be observe ?
>>481924
Humans aren't private or personal property except in slaveholding societies so I'm not sure what your point is.
When you boil it down, there is a real distinction between property that produces rents, and property that doesn't, and between tasks that require only one person, and tasks that require more than one person.
The idea that there is a distinction between personal and private property is mostly heard when right wingers criticize socialists.
>>482001
>The labor theory of value
It's almost 2016 m8. You can look this shit up on fucking youtube. There is no excuse to be this ignorant.
Still no answer to the OP questions.
>>481859
>A napkin can't be capital
tell that to people who sell napkins.
>>481716
Because leftards don't want to be overwhelmed by third worlders taking their things.
>>482022
>Is there a communist/anarchist post-revolution society where such a distinction can be observe ?
The wikipedia article on personal property cite a source on African socialism so that would be it.
>>482092
> There is a real distinction between property that produces rents, and property that doesn't
In what they're doing at a specific moment, yes, but all personal property is latent private property in that they at any moment can turn into private property by the owner literary willing it.
Personal property is property produced by the body itself, private property is everything owned and produced outside of the human body. So menstrual blood and mucus, snot, shit, piss, etc. is personal property and everything else is private property.
wikipedia says: " When Marx called for the abolition of private property, he was not referring to "personal property" such as clothing and furniture that was not used to produce the "social wealth," but to productive property that requires collective effort to operate."
>>483684
You mean the vendors of a commodity?
Its a fundamentally meaningless distinction, it was only created with the purpose of inserting some notion of sense into what can only be seriously considered as a call for theft and plunder.
>>481716
>modern leftists
>not knowing this is basic Marxism
>probably cries himself to sleep in fear of cultural Marxism
>>483722
I dunno? Is there an anarchist/communist post-revolutionary society that has ever existed?
>>488004
>muh plunder
>muh bourgeois morality
I'll trade you this knife edge for that morality, chump. You can't stop expropriation with an argument. We know what expropriation is, we know it does not conform to your philosophy. We don't care.
Communists are not absolute egalitarians, we seek to exercise the authority of our class. We want to plunder you and aren't ashamed to say it. Plenty of personal property will be expropriated along with private property.
Not shit like iPhones, but yes, shit like mansions and private jets.
>>488993
Good luck with that bro. You'll have to talk to the police, and to the majority of civilian gun owners, who happen to be very anti-commie.
>>488993
There are very few Communists in the Western world. Your revolution will be contained.
>>489010
>majority of civilian gun owners
Lol maybe the legal ones. You know how many guns are on the streets? Not that it matters, your guns won't save you when we withdraw the power of our labor. The power of insurrection is social, not military. Arms are only needed to defend our gains.
>>489014
>implying ideological affiliation is the key
No. Communism emerges as a natural response to the proletarian condition. Communism occurs the moment proletarians begin to assert their authority as a class, it does not require the study of any philosophy.
>>489070
When faced with reason you replied with plunder, when faced with guns you retreat to boycott, when faced with a lack of militants you retreat to the equivalent of a Jewish prophecy.
Not sure if bait, but this is amusing desu.
>>489264
>reason
You think it's unreasonable that those who are deprived of property would capture it? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
>boycott
No, dipshit. Strike action is not a boycott. Boycott is a withdrawl of purchasing power. Withdrawal of labor power means there is nobody to sell your product, nobody to transport your product, and nobody to create your product.
>lack of militants
Top kek. Who is more populous, workers or bosses? Which is it? The chimp outs are gonna destroy America or we're a small and insignificant force? Can't be both, you fucking cretin.
Honestly, somebody who can't into general strike/human strike/insurrection and thinks about boycotts is clearly a little too uninformed to talk. You should probably take some time off to study.
>>489382
>deprived of property
We live under a private property system, there is nothing stopping you from acquiring and preserving property, including capital. So yes, its unreasonable to propose and also unreasonable to think it could happen.
>boycott
>verb (used with object)
>1.to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion:
>nobody to sell your product, nobody to transport your product
>preventing dealings with
>workers or bosses?
Why do you subscribe to the outdated worker/boss dichotomy?
A lawyer, an accountant, a doctor, a designer or any office worker crunching numbers has a boss, but they are not the same as mine and factory workers. The shift in the USA from a product-based economy to a service economy, along with the overall increase in quality of life and non-conventional forms of employment (like self-employment) has greatly reduced the ability of the ill-defined and non unified proletariat (if such a thing still exists on the 1st world) to do shit in a violent revolution.
Marx concludes "You have nothing to lose but your chains!"
This is no longer true. Most people are living relatively comfy lives and have a lot to lose, they consider no need for a revolution, despite the propaganda efforts aimed at fueling feelings of envy, the most that anyone could get out of them is votes and Facebook shares.
Who is going to strike? The unionized workers who have a pretty sweet deal going on? The niggers who cant shoot straight and will end up killing each other anyways? The NEETS? The hard-working Mexican immigrants that only cross the border because their families need the money?
I guess you could get plenty of signatures and pledges from San Francisco and some Universities though.
>>489503
>can't discern between strike action/insurrection and boycott
Sorry, you do not have the skills necessary to engage in the discussion.
>>489520
ok m8
if you can't lift it and carry it away it's private property. if you can it's personal property.
>>481825
Don't you know anything? Anyone who even slightly questions leftwing ideas is from /pol/
>>489520
oh man, blown the fuck out.
>>489520
>implying all three werent covered regardless
According to Marx, money is a commodity. That alone should demote marxists to the level of creation science.
>>489520
Dude can you not read?
>>481716
They don't what to give their laptops and phones, all property is to be shared and not owned under marxism.
>>482001
Capital is the haves.
>>486899
It's damage control, all things are private property.
>>481716
Short story short:
Individualist anarchism is the new hip thing now.
