When it comes to communicating communist ideas I feel like it'd be more effective if instead of saying "private property" we said "remote ownership" or "ownership on paper" or "economic property" or "corporate property" or "for-profit property"

Cuz like what we mean is "you can't own a house you don't live in" "you can't own a business others work in" "You can't own land others live or work on"

And I think in the 21st century "private property" just doesn't evoke that meaning

@shel "private" kind of has the implication that the property is, well, private. If you're not living in "your" house and someone else is then in what world should it be considered "private" to you

@jordyd yes see this is the discrepancy between what we mean by "Abolish private property" and what that sounds like

i don't think most people think of their apartment as the "private property of their landlord" because "private" evokes like, diaries.

which is why I think a term besides "private" to describe what we wanna abolish would be useful

@shel Oh no I think you misunderstand me. I completely agree with you, I was just phrasing it another way

@shel @jordyd I've heard property being split into "personal" and "private", with diaries being put into one category and apartment buildings into another.

@pettter @jordyd yes I know but I'm trying to find a way to communicate the idea without redefining words for people in a way different from how they use it every day. We on the left have a problem with using antiquated 19th century meanings of words and then explaining our idea involves like "no community of food means like we all share food not that there's a bunch of sentient sandwiches who are friends" "no private means something different than how you understand it to mean"

@jordyd @pettter Like the private/personal/collective categories make sense as a theory level of sorting stuff but when I'm at a rally of strangers in a crowd I can't say that and expect "private" to make sense as distinct from "personal" when they're very much synonyms to most people outside of politics or business.

@shel @pettter
I expect every random person on the street to have read Proudhon and Kropotkin at a minimum

@shel @pettter Honestly I know Proudhon was the originator of the property/possession distinction but I've never read his works and I don't plan on it. We don't just use antiquated terms we use terms that are inaccessible to anyone that doesn't want to spend years studying these things. And it's silly because they already know enough to understand it all, they just have to wade through a mountain of terminology

@jordyd it's not actually that difficult to explain a lot of these ideas in simple terms ime if your goal is to communicate the idea and not to recite a theory to them or convince them to read a book.

@shel I agree, but I also think a lot of our terms can be discarded, especially those terms that require explaining all kinds of other terms in the process, because they often have modern analogues

@shel By all means explain terms. But use simpler, more modern terms by default as well

@shel @jordyd i think we should just do a better job of explaining the difference between private and personal. the alternative term for "private property" you are looking for is "capital"

@shel @jordyd or, rather, make it more clear that you're saying that you think ownership should be decided by usage and not by some abstract claim.

@shel your point is sound, but i'm not huge on the replacements offered either. there's gotta be a better phrase out there that can roll owned vacant property and rental property into one term without sounding abstract

remote ownership sounds closest but it still sounds more like a good thing than anything. at least private property sounds as dreadful as it is

@ctrlaltdog "private property" to me, before I started using it how the left does, evokes "private" in a way that sounds like "my private life" or "I don't want to share private information with you" like the term tends to mean "held close to my chest" yeah?

so "private property" to a lot of people who aren't talking about politics all the time evokes like "my diary" "my car" "my blender" "my photo album"

pol Show more

pol Show more

pol Show more

pol Show more

pol Show more

pol Show more

pol Show more

pol Show more

pol Show more

pol Show more

pol Show more

pol, language Show more

@Trev only when "my toothbrush" is the toothbrush you own but that I rent from you



@Trev @shel *insert the General Ripper Fluoridation speech from _Dr. Strangelove_ here*

@shel "privatization" still sounds like something elites do at others' expense, and it assumes a privatizer

So, privatized property

@shel I think we need to bring back the distinction of personal and private property, and make it clear that the home in which you live is personal because you live in it, and then get on with the abolition of private property.

And by "live in," I mean "as a primary residence." No "I timeshare across my seven mansions" bulldada. You get one. When everybody has one, we can talk about two.

@literorrery @shel please someone hurry up and make this happen so I can get rid of the house I don't want without losing the house I do want.

@shel @literorrery I would very much love to un-own one of them but that doesn't seem to be possible.

@Fuego @literorrery i dont understand but i'm guessing it's like some complicated bank nonsent

@shel @literorrery bought the house right before the crash. House lost a ton of value. Still have to pay the bank. Cant sell it. Unless someone wants to hand me $100k?

@Fuego @literorrery this is such a disgusting situation to get thrown into

@shel @literorrery when someone says they “own a house” what they really usually mean is the bank owns the house and they are on the hook for more money than they have ever seen in their life times 3

@Fuego @literorrery yeah i often have said that homeownership for anyone who isn't megawealthy just sounds like having a shittier landlord

@Fuego @shel I bought the house I'm planning on dying in, so I'm not worried about selling it, but the cost of upkeep has definitely exceeded my worst projections. It was still the right move. I still has downsides for which I wasn't prepared.

@literorrery @Fuego I'd only buy a house if I was trying to start one of those Collectives or a housing co-op or something like they have in Worcester; or like lupinewood up in turners falls.

which is definitely a fantasy i've had hehe. but yeah like spreading the cost across a bunch of ppl equally owning the space and chipping in for labor, making it into a super cool space that can act as a space for community events, would be cool~

@Fuego @shel I've been running one in various forms for seventeen years. It doesn't always work out as it does in the dream, and the reality of having to tell people they're not contributing sufficiently -- by whatever measuring stick you use -- is a lot harder when enforcing boundaries means taking away living stability.

@Fuego @shel This isn't to say it can't work, but everyone in the house needs to commit to the common good, and to agree on what that means, for it to work long-term. That's a lot of emotional labor for everyone to manage, and not everyone is suited to those kinds of arrangements. Even those who are can still gave different needs and those have to be communicated and managed as a group.

@literorrery @Fuego yeah the ones I know of, like Collective-A-Go-Go in Worcester, are often more places where artists and activists do a term of living for a while, make some sort of contributions to the space, and then cycle out after a couple years.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

cybrespace: the social hub of the information superhighway

jack in to the mastodon fediverse today and surf the dataflow through our cybrepunk, slightly glitchy web portal