No, private property is things like a coat and shoes.
If someone owns an industrial lemon juicer, that’s part of the means of production, and must be collectively owned. Sorry Jenny, you can’t have a lemonade stand.
In fact, Jenny’s parents are allowed to own a small lemon juicer as part of their personal property. But, if Jenny tries to use that juicer for her lemonade stand and charges money for her lemonade, that juicer is now part of the means of production (as are the lemons) and she’s now operating an illegal enterprise.
The USSR and other supposedly “communist” governments all eventually allowed some capitalism in their economies, because 100% pure communism simply didn’t work.
Well he was a key theoritician of communism, so partly, but also Engles, Lenin, Che, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Fanon, Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, many others. It’d be a shame if I only ever read one author when communism has been developed by multitudes of scientists, teachers and other thinkers over the last 150 years.
Any of them, If there is a classless society where everyone’s basic needs are met, a person growing their own lemons or acquiring them and giving lemonade to people in exchange for currency can still be communism and wouldn’t be a problem. They aren’t exploiting laborers by hoarding wealth derived from wage labor. Socialist systems can have markets, and small business enterprises.
How did you get that from what he said? Your example would still be the people who make the product owning the profits.
So, you’re in favour of private ownership of the means of production?
You’re confusing personal property with essential infrastructure. You can have and sell all those things even under communism.
No, private property is things like a coat and shoes.
If someone owns an industrial lemon juicer, that’s part of the means of production, and must be collectively owned. Sorry Jenny, you can’t have a lemonade stand.
In fact, Jenny’s parents are allowed to own a small lemon juicer as part of their personal property. But, if Jenny tries to use that juicer for her lemonade stand and charges money for her lemonade, that juicer is now part of the means of production (as are the lemons) and she’s now operating an illegal enterprise.
The USSR and other supposedly “communist” governments all eventually allowed some capitalism in their economies, because 100% pure communism simply didn’t work.
Alright buddy, whatever you say.
You mean, whatever Marx says.
Well he was a key theoritician of communism, so partly, but also Engles, Lenin, Che, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Fanon, Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, many others. It’d be a shame if I only ever read one author when communism has been developed by multitudes of scientists, teachers and other thinkers over the last 150 years.
And which of them thought that communism without capitalism allowed someone to run a for-profit business?
Any of them, If there is a classless society where everyone’s basic needs are met, a person growing their own lemons or acquiring them and giving lemonade to people in exchange for currency can still be communism and wouldn’t be a problem. They aren’t exploiting laborers by hoarding wealth derived from wage labor. Socialist systems can have markets, and small business enterprises.