are you retarded

>>8020983
That property shouldn't be private anymore you dumb fuck.

>>8020983
Private propert is different from personal property. Your phone and sextoys are personal property. Theyre yours. You own them the same way you do now.

Private property, in this sense, is the means of production. Factories and whatnot. Marx says people shouldnt own these means of production since opression, imperialism and so on and so on *sniff*. Basically not allowing classes to form.

Means of production should not belongs to a private person

>>8021281
Capitalism already accomplished that, the grand majority of productive forces in the developed world are owned by corporations not individuals but that doesn't mean wall-street is practising communism. Share-capital socializes the productive forces but not in the interests of the proletariat.
The failing of all actual historic socialism was thinking that you can simply nationalize capital which was designed by and for the circuit of capital to function in the interests of the proletariat which cannot be done, you just end up with state capitalism and society becomes a single inefficient totalitarian joint-stock company.

>>8021320
Marx never said any of that, troll boy.

>>8021326
did you read volume 3 of Capital or the unpublished “Chapter 6” of volume 1 of Capital? like 90% of self-proclaimed "Marxists" probably haven't
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/

try reading Jacques Camatte
https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/capcom/index.htm

>>8021320
>productive forces in the developed world are owned by corporations
which are in turn owned by the individual elites. Are you kidding man?

>>8021320
The means of production have never, in history, belonged in a practical sense to literal singular individuals. That's not much of a point to make. There's always been some necessary practical corporatism of whatever complexity. This is not really "socializing" the means of production. The obvious difference between capitalist corporatism, and theoretical communism, is that the former is framed within market competition among multiple corporations, while the latter is not. Communism is only possible as a complete, self-contained social system. It's possible for such a system to be totalitarian, but it's not compatible with the concept of state capitalism.

>>8020983
My interpretation of it is that the concept of private property has been a cancer on society from the beginning (at least in Marx's point of view). A economically-defined class system necessitates a doctrine of private property and ownership, since the separation of classes is really a separation of "haves" and "have-nots." \

As long as this is property in a Lockean sense ("I worked, therefore I am entitled to the fruits of my labor"), it is not entirely unjust. However, when the concept of personal ownership is combined with sharp stratification into families to the point where people identify with their family name and they become a larger self-entity, then emerges what we call "inheritance," basically an extension of the Lockean "I worked for this so it is mine" to say "a member of MY FAMILY worked for this, so it is OURS (mine)." This is where it becomes unjust, because those members of society who inherited greater wealth simply by virtue of their being born in the right circumstances now have a distinctive advantage.

In Marx's envisioning of communism, this is not possible, since the means of production are owned by the state, and their is no overarching sentiment that individuals can truly possess things.

Peasants are competent enough to provide for and feed not only themselves but an entire country. Somehow.