Marxists, after a passage in The Communist Manifesto, use a formulation "abolition of private property ". This means private property in the basic means of production. It doesn't mean "personal property" will be abolished. For example, an individual wouldn't necessarily share their clothes with any and everyone else (at least that's the way I think of it). But a factory or electric power plant would not be owned by an individual or small group of people. They would be social "property" ( I would say). In a certain sense, this is eliminating PROPERTY , in its most important sense. But as I say, it doesn't mean there wouldn't be rules and laws, even, on power and control over the basic means of production. This power and control would be exercised in the interest of social groups not private accumulation of wealth. The decisions regarding production at an enterprise will not be ultimately based on the profiting of a few, private individual interests , but rather the interests of a much larger social whole; and coordinated more with other enterprises.
Charles Brown
>>> Brett Knowlton <brettk at unica-usa.com> 10/19 2:48 PM >>>
Isn't eliminating property the same thing as having communal property? Or
am I failing to see a distinction?
Brett
At 09:34 AM 10/19/98 -0400, you wrote:
>It seems to me that gatherers and
>hunters had property in the sense
>that they had rules about the
>relationships between people
>and their means of production, but
>these property rules were not
>private property rights. There was
>communal property.
>
>Charles Brown