• willeypete23@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dude why do people think communism means you can’t own anything. There’s a difference between private and personal properties. You can own a house, and a car, hell even a whole farm. What you cannot do is hold capital.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      A farm is means of production, therefore it would classify as public property. You cannot own production under communism, only products.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Therefore it could count as a means of production but in general in Communism personal farms of reasonable size and constant use are encouraged. Again, that’s a misunderstanding of communism.

        • huge_clock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s not a feature of communism, it’s a compromise based on the recognition that private ownership produces more efficient outcomes at scale. According to the collective farming wiki: A Soviet article in March 1975 found that 27% of the total value of Soviet agricultural produce was produced by private farms despite the fact that they only consisted of less than 1% of arable land (approximately 20 million acres), making them roughly 40 times more efficient than collective farms.

          No one wants to recreate the Great Famine (The most deadly famine in human history - caused entirely by communism and specifically collectivized farms).

          There’s also Holomodor in the USSR which lead to similarly deadly outcomes.

          • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fun fact for you: The famines were largely caused by Stalin appointing a guy to do agriculture policy who knew less than nothing about agriculture. He forced farmers to plant crops too densely because “communist crops will not compete for nutrients” causing the crops to just die. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

            Most dictators are absolute troglodytes and Stalin was no exception.

      • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oversimplified for brevity, but basically: You may not be able to OWN a farm in the sense that the land itself is collectivized (not even always true under socialism, depends on specific policies and also whether you consider the “farm” to be a different entity from the land it’s sitting on, in that case you often own the farm itself, just look at home ownership rates in socialist countries), but you can USE and WORK ON the farm to generate products for yourself and society at large. I don’t see it as that different practically from the perspective of the farmer, since they’re still living on the land and taking advantage of its productivity.

        I think that’s certainly better than renting or mortgaging the land and having to deal with landlords and banks. Collectivization usually freed farmers from their obligation to their landlord or private bank and they just continued farming as normal. It’s the landlords who had their “livelihood” taken away (i.e. land that they owned but someone else was living and working on), not the farmers doing the actual work.

    • huge_clock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because in practice the line between capital and personal property is very thin. Can a car or apartment not be used to generate income in a modern economy?

      When the soviets were in power they would force multiple families under one roof (kommunalka). Think 4-8 families sharing a kitchen and a bathroom. Each family was given just one room and all housing was considered communal housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_apartment?wprov=sfti1

      After Stalin’s death families began receiving single family apartments due to massive housing reform by Kruschev, but were hastily built and called ‘khrushchyoba,’ a cross between Khrushchev’s name and the Russian term for slums. That by the way still leaves a multigenerational period from 1917-1954 where the kommunalka would have been the primary unit of housing.

      • tpyo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That was a really fascinating read, thanks. Checked out a few of the other links from the wiki. Do you happen to have or know where I can see interior pictures and floorplans?

        I’ll try looking it up myself in the meantime; I love stuff of that nature

    • deerdelighted@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      So when does a farm go from personal to private property? Is it the moment you rent it or employ other people on it?

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s an oversimplification, but… Sort of, yeah. Property you “own” to keep from others, and make money from owning it.

      • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Rule of thumb and there are always exceptions, land that you live and work on is usually personal property, land that you own but someone else pays you for the privilege of living and working on is private property.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        One of the thousands of nuanced use cases that generalist communist revolutionaries haven’t even thought about let alone have the skills to provide solutions for.

        • aport@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          They have a solution, it’s labor camps or bullets to any citizen who doesn’t follow orders.

      • MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think definition b on private covers what he was talking about

        Also merriam Webster is not the end all be all of how language is used

        • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          belonging to or concerning an individual person, company, or interest

          My car “belongs to […] an individual person”, doesn’t it?