Talk:Private property/Archive 1

Archive 1

Do Socialists/Marxists believe that a human owns their body?

I'm curious, because the way that I've heard Socialists, Marxists, Communists, and Syndicalists refer to private property seems as though the very idea makes them sick. What is their view on property when applied to one's own self (ie their body and possibly their mind)? Fatrb38 (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing the subject matter: WP:NOTAFORUM. Furthermore, applying property rights to the human body is ridiculous, the product of capitalist libertarian (what a contradiction in terms) pseudo-philosophical sophistry. Private property historically means ownership of productive property, ie, non-consumer items that are operated collectively. Modern private property like joint-stock companies are forms of collective property. Socialism, or communism, is simply the stage of development where the concept of property itself is unneeded - indeed, some apply this to all forms of material goods and services, but the majority of socialists only refer to socialized productive property (the means of production). Battlecry (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality and level of detail of article are inadequate; section on origins and history of private property is missing

The quality and level of detail of the article are by no means adequate to the importance of the subject. Private property is at the core of personal freedom and all other types of freedom deriving from it (freedom of speech, movement, and even human rights such as the dignity of the person); it is at the core of personal accountability and liability (thus, responsibility), the rule of law and even at the very core of economic development (as developmental economist Hernando DeSoto has argued). The article completely lacks a section on origins and history of private property a) as a legal institution and b) as a philosophical idea. This should include that the historical origins of property are empirically nebulous and unknown, while many speculations about its origin exist; that private property first flourished in the ancient greek city states starting around 800 b.C., and was adopted by the romans who developed their system of private law (ius privatum); and the ambigous judgement of property in the history of thought, culminating in the division of the modern world into a capitalist and communist part for the most part of the 20th century (1917-1989), on the basis of ideological differences about private property. --Thewolf37 (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

you might be interested in the Right to property i have worked on.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Individualism vs. Collectivism discussion

Perhaps the article could somehow incorporate the fact that both capitalism and collectivism believe in ownership. Collectivists believe all private property belongs to society "as a whole", since government is usually the underlying guarantor of rights, while capitalists believe that one individual can own private property, such as a rental home or a bag of gold or 100 shares of a for-profit company, and derive individual profit from such ownership. Capitalists tend to hold the position that governments are instituded in the first place as a guarantor of such "individual rights". The article needs to incorporate these concepts better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.133.206.2 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would be necessary or even appropriate given the subject matter of this article. It might make sense to include this information in the article on ownership, or property in general. The article should focus strictly on private property - the means of production and socialized assets that are owned privately, and different views on the role(s) of private property in society. From what I understand, the "collectivists" (I am assuming you mean the philosophy of Collectivist anarchism?) don't believe in private property; but if they have a position on the subject matter that is distinct from the general socialist and liberal positions mentioned, then feel free to add a subsection to the article detailing this position. As for capitalists believing in the idealist position, I don't think it would be appropriate to generalize the viewpoint of all capitalists...because I doubt many, or even most, capitalists believe in that ideology.Battlecry (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Roles of private property in society

"Liberal perspective Advocates of capitalism (see: Economic liberalism) consider private parts to be essential for the construction of a prosperous society."
________________________________________________________________________________

This wording is weaselly, it doesn't accurately enough describe this section. "Liberal perspective" in the title implies a more left leaning view of private property, views which are supposed to have been addressed in the other sub-sections. If you are going to refer to the more classic definition of Liberalism versus liberal, i.e. Burke or Locke style Liberalism, then why not say exactly that -- i.e. Economic Liberalism Perspective. Further "Advocate of capitalism" is a weaselly introduction. Why not just say, "Capitalists consider private property (not parts) to be essential..." Hence I'm making those changes to take out the weaselly wording and make this sub-section more consistent with the other sub-sections. 10stone5 (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an attack article

This article serves no purpose other than to attack the concept of private property. The vast majority, if not all, of the material comes from sources attacking the very concept of private property. There are other articles on property (e.g., Property and Personal property). If this article's material is found to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, then it should be placed in another article about property. SMP0328. (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Just because this article makes references to Marxist and Socialist views on the subject it doesn't make it any of an attack article. Look at the section regarding the Liberal Perspective on private property, you'll see that it gives an excellent example of capitalist and libertarian views on the concept. I recommend removing this banner for NPOV. Children of the dragon (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This article presents multiple perspectives on the concept of private property; I fail to see how the article is biased in any way. Furthermore, seeing how the concept of private property (collective/individual ownership titles over productive property or socialized enterprises) was developed and distinguished from other forms of property by early socialists such as Karl Marx, it is only proper for the article to be presented from a socialist perspective, as liberals and right-libertarians make no distinction between private property and personal property.Battlecry (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• "This article serves no purpose other than to attack the concept of private property." -- Totally agree with this sentiment. I am changing this article to adhere to the generally accepted concepts of private property. 10stone5 (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this is an "attack article" on private property. Private property as a concept is political in nature, so you almost have to show the various perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not an attack article. It is, however, unavoidable that it shall read like one, because private property currently exists in almost every country on earth, so the structure will have a tendency to end up reading as "private property is... The following people believe it should be done away with because..." The people who believe it is good have been mentioned anyway, so I don't see a problem. Sarg Pepper (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article cite Levine on the distinction between personal and private property

This seems totally un required. This distinction can be cited straight out of Marx, no need to cite someone who is not even listed as a scholar as an authoritative source on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.220.129 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know who Levine is, but he has no idea about what Marx wrote. Sure, in the Communist Manifesto, there are references to personnel property, when he was talking about peasant and artisan property, but Marx does not make a distinction in Capital. I've tried to make changes, keeping the Levine stuff but ditching all the speculation, but someone then undid my changes! Ledpup (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

More persective for groups in support of private property

The use of the article as a means to attack property has been noted, and I contend those notions are correct.

The article misconstrues the perspective of the Austrian school, and makes it seems as though only Hayek and Mises were concerned with the essentiality of property, completely ignoring phillosophers such as [Hans-Hermann Hoppe]] and Murray Rothbard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.163.84 (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Latvian plaques

There are many address plaques marking private properties. Perhaps someone could take a photograph of such. – Kaihsu (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Rights & Obligations?

What are the rights & obligations of Private Property that are common between nations? What are the differences? Vilhelmo De Okcidento (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Communist Manifesto

There appears to be way too much reference to The Communist Manifesto in this page. It is Marx's most well known work, but it is hardly something one should reference when talking about a "Marxist perspective". Marxists do not reach for The Communist Manifesto, they reach for Capital. Only non-Marxists reach for The Communist Manifesto. This whole debate between personal and private property from a "Marxist perspective", is laughable. Ledpup (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC) There is no such thing as debate in any communistic country and if we don't connect communistic theory with reality it makes all debate non-scientific. Yes, we conviniently ignore scientific method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B36:8EC0:69DD:773B:9E1:6497 (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)