The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: The nature of communism. The discussion was initiated by Lazarus.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!
11 September, 2011 - 13:27
#1
The nature of communism
The nature of communism
You wrote
and without any kind of individual or collective property.
*****************
Why ? I thought it was the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
Could you give the context of this quote?
I was thinking along similar lines. My first thought was that the quote was from an old text by the GCF which was arguing that the USSR was a form of state capitalism, so the distinction between private and collective property is really about individual and state property, both of which as the previous post says are forms of 'private' property; I also think Bordiga is right to say that in communism there is no longer any property.
I think you are equating property and means of prodution, I was thinking about house,fridge, tv, that sort of personal property. Possibly all of that could be socialised, but I'd guess that would be a later stage.
Context
- Communism must be a society without classes, without exploitation of man by man, and without any kind of individual or collective property. The only possible culmination of the socialisation of production by capitalism is the social expropriation, by the whole of society, of the means of production. Only the abolition of class privileges and individual expropriation can resolve the existing contradiction between the social nature of production and the capitalist nature of social relations.