<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Private Property in Communism</title>
	<link>http://oneandfour.org/archives/2005/05/private_propert.html</link>
	<description>Alex's Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:16:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2</generator>

	<item>
 		<title>Comment on Private Property in Communism by: Jonathan P.</title>
		<link>http://oneandfour.org/archives/2005/05/private_propert.html#comment-177</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://oneandfour.org/archives/2005/05/private_propert.html#comment-177</guid>
					<description>The opposition to private property in pure communist, i.e., Marxist, ideology lies in the private ownership of capital. The private ownership of, say, a car, does nothing to harm another persons free, uninhibited production. But the private control of capital is capitalist society is what the bourgeoisie uses to command and direct the labor of others. To a communist, this is alienation from human nature, which is the nature of production, the desire being free production. It is this private property which a communist sees as evil, and only this form which communism will do away with.
Communism presupposes a human nature which is inherantly good. Greed, tyranny, hatred, malice, etc, are all seen as &quot;excesses&quot; (to borrow a phrase from Lenin) which are products of any society with a division of labor between classes. Because mankind is a producer by nature (our main, defining and separating feature as sapien sapien), naturally the freedom of production must be mankind's prime want. Societies based on subjecting production, in our day capitalism, particularly neo-liberalism, are what the communists (i.e., Marxist) sees as inherantly doomed (as all such societies before have proved by their dimise). Hence the prediction that human progress ends when we reach a society without this division of labor, also known as communism.  
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>The opposition to private property in pure communist, i.e., Marxist, ideology lies in the private ownership of capital. The private ownership of, say, a car, does nothing to harm another persons free, uninhibited production. But the private control of capital is capitalist society is what the bourgeoisie uses to command and direct the labor of others. To a communist, this is alienation from human nature, which is the nature of production, the desire being free production. It is this private property which a communist sees as evil, and only this form which communism will do away with.<br />
Communism presupposes a human nature which is inherantly good. Greed, tyranny, hatred, malice, etc, are all seen as &#8220;excesses&#8221; (to borrow a phrase from Lenin) which are products of any society with a division of labor between classes. Because mankind is a producer by nature (our main, defining and separating feature as sapien sapien), naturally the freedom of production must be mankind&#8217;s prime want. Societies based on subjecting production, in our day capitalism, particularly neo-liberalism, are what the communists (i.e., Marxist) sees as inherantly doomed (as all such societies before have proved by their dimise). Hence the prediction that human progress ends when we reach a society without this division of labor, also known as communism.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
 		<title>Comment on Private Property in Communism by: cathy</title>
		<link>http://oneandfour.org/archives/2005/05/private_propert.html#comment-176</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://oneandfour.org/archives/2005/05/private_propert.html#comment-176</guid>
					<description>erm,. . .well, I meant to say it &quot;works&quot; on paper. . . either way, I was being a bit sarcastic. No offense hopefully</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>erm,. . .well, I meant to say it &#8220;works&#8221; on paper. . . either way, I was being a bit sarcastic. No offense hopefully
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
 		<title>Comment on Private Property in Communism by: J. Kende</title>
		<link>http://oneandfour.org/archives/2005/05/private_propert.html#comment-175</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://oneandfour.org/archives/2005/05/private_propert.html#comment-175</guid>
					<description>I really don't understand how people can even think it looks good on paper. Looks like slavery on paper to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I really don&#8217;t understand how people can even think it looks good on paper. Looks like slavery on paper to me.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
 		<title>Comment on Private Property in Communism by: cathy</title>
		<link>http://oneandfour.org/archives/2005/05/private_propert.html#comment-174</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://oneandfour.org/archives/2005/05/private_propert.html#comment-174</guid>
					<description>ah communism. . .it looks good , on paper.
too bad people are oppurtunistic bastards (;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>ah communism. . .it looks good , on paper.<br />
too bad people are oppurtunistic bastards (;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
 		<title>Comment on Private Property in Communism by: SciVille</title>
		<link>http://oneandfour.org/archives/2005/05/private_propert.html#comment-173</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://oneandfour.org/archives/2005/05/private_propert.html#comment-173</guid>
					<description>Good reply.:)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Good reply.:)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
