Property vs. Personal Posessions

Jamal Hannah jamal at bronze.lcs.mit.edu
Fri Sep 15 14:47:53 MDT 1995


> On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, HANS DESPAIN wrote:
> >
> > Hence, it is not private property which need to be abolished, but rather
> > the production relations as such.
> >
> Louis:
> In plain language, doesn't private property in a Marxist context mean the
> steel mills, coal mines, banks, etc. I don't think it's ever be used in a
> meaningful sense to describe items like my stereo, Armani cologne, etc.

Yeah, Hans.. the difference between Private Property and Personal
Posessions, basically.

This distinction is always obscured by the capitalist
media and the right in order to convince the American "public"
that they must fight to defend Walkmens, video games,
gun collections and to on, instead of factories, businesses and
land holdings which most of them dont have anyway.  (even a "home"
is usualy a morgtage which one must pay for years.. so the person
is really a slave to the bank)

It's a big joke... to most people in this country, it wouldnt _matter_
who owns the businesses or factories... just so long as the
Coca-Cola stays cold and there's lots of cheap meat products
to eat.  (so what happends when one finds that even when you have these
things, you are still powerless and misirable?)

It's possible (probable?) that many voters, certainly the more politicized
ones, are well aware that our system rides on the suffering of
others.. but it's "acceptable" or "neccesary", lest "the standard of
living" slow down even for a second in order that others may have a better
life.

 - JH



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list