I asked this question in class today and my Marxist professor gave me an insufficient answer...

I don't that's right, because he said personal property still exists. The problems comes from deciding what is and isn't personal property.

>In this case, who would recieve it?
my professor said it would run on a lottery system, which seems pretty fucked up. Marxists are shitty at distributing scarce resources that aren't necessarily commodities.

First come first serve lol

In the future automation and technology will be able to create new land. Unlimited beachfront property for all.

How does it work today? Say you have two offers both willing to pay, which one gets to buy it?

the one who offers the most money

>scarce resources that aren't necessarily commodities
Why are they any better at distributing commodities?
Whoever the owner chooses to sell it to. Usually the one who offers more cash, but It's all up to the current owner

the guy with the most money.

they aren't but at least the system makes sense when applied to things water and food. when you apply his thinking to land, especially land that isn't capital, like beachfront property it's get tricky.

>water and food
For some reason, a communist society has exactly one steak. Who gets to eat it? It's very much the same situation, and it doesn't make sense for food either

Well, I mean, it is just *one* steak. Perhaps the most efficient worker this month gets to eat it.....

>Who gets to eat it?
in theory for communism to work the means of production (technology) would have to be so advanced that we are post-scarity when it comes to food. Everyone would probably be eating soylent though, since eating meat is oppressive, or something.

In a post-scarcity society, can I eat as much pussy as I want?

>eating meat is oppressive, or something.
Which cow would get grassfront property in a cowmunist society?

every cow produces 1.5 tons of methane per year. In a cowmunist society, they would all need to be put down to prevent global warming.

Kewl story bro!

In anycase, in "true communism" (sic), those workers who were part of the commune of the production area that contained the beach front would vote upon it, as well as divide up the labor to maintain it.

Under a totalitarian government, such as Stalinist or Maoist government, the state would assign who lives there, and whether residences would be built there at all. Obviously high ranking party members get first dibs.

Under any of those governments, as well as in a capitalist representative republic like the USA, the area still could become declared public property - in which case no one lives there, and it becomes a park or nature reserve, as is the case with many beaches in the US.

You don't have the right to another human beings labor or body.

The only thing communism gives you that liberalism doesn't in regards to women is that your ability to "pick them up" will be determined entirely by your looks and ability to spit game (according to my professor)

>according to my professor
jesus christ dude isn't college supposed to teach you how to think, not what to think

It's a meme.

Not that some college professors won't tell you what to think.

The community is supposed to decide. Not too sure what happens in a situation where the property is in high demand. Communism isn't about equality, its about the people helping out each others needs the best of their ability. There will still be more talented people and maybe the community will decide to reward those who genuinely do work hard.

It's simple really, turn everything into a desert or pave over everything and create a walled off DMZ along coastal areas so no one can go to the beach.

1) fuck off to End.

Whoever is living in it and wants to remain living in it. I don't see how the lottery system is particularly bad

Marx though equality was bourgeois.

Communism doesn't mean equality. Hierarchy means very little if they can't use the beachfront property to generate unearned income, which is then used to generate even more income through other investments.

This is like saying Joe was born with a bigger dick than you and it's not fair because he has a big dick and you have a micropenis. Stop whining little fagget.

And you fundamentally missed the part where your choice could be a microapartment on a beachfront, or a nice big suburban house. You know, just like in fucking capitalism how you can arrive at the same price for different commodities.

Retard.

You have to stop thinking of property in capitalist terms where property means you have exclusive rights to do anything you want to it.

Personal property is "property" that other people respect because they realize it's sometimes better if everyone had their own tooth brush. It doesn't mean they won't confiscate your toothbrush if you make an anti-revolutionary shank to stab the commisar.

You don't have exclusive inalienable rights to it. You have exclusive use of it, because people don't want to share toothbrushes and people understand that. If society suddenly thinks sharing toothbrushes is fine, guess what happens to your "personal property"

You start in the average lv.1 bugmen apartments and spend labour bux to go to the beachfront or penthouse.

Communism organizes its material life on the basis of the confrontation and interplay of needs - which does not exclude conflicts and even some form of violence. Men will not turn into angels: why should they?

>tfw you can't spend your capital investment dividend bucks to fund your beach front property
To each according to his contribution is truly a plague on humanity

What's confusing is when in capitalist society you're expected to be an angel and 'respect' other people's 'property' because it's the morally right thing to do.

You aren't. That's why police exist, user.

Real talk, if you can make your monthly coal shoveling quote in 2hrs you get a beach front dacha

Same shit happens with respecting someone else's life. Wtf capigtalism

You will be expected to respect this-and-that in communist society; bu force, if necessary. The basis and particulars will change, but the spirit will not.

But capitalism just goes against human nature. I'm supposed to leave a nice dwelling alone because some guy who lives 1000 miles away has a piece of paper saying it's his?

...

By all means, have a go at him, if you're alright with what comes next. In society to come, go ahead, have a go at someone you feel has slighted you in one form or another, if you're alright with what comes next.

"Why do police exist?"
"To protect property."
"Why protect legal property in a capitalist society?"
"Because it's the morally right thing to do."
etc.

>threats
"For these great lunatics are like the little so-called lunatics in this point too — that they assail by stealth him who touches their fixed idea."

Do you seriously expect OP to get a serious answer there?

Communism doesn't work in practice and for one of the big reasons you just mentioned OP. There is not enough goods to go around for everyone while under communism everyone is supposed to be equal but its just physically impossible to accommodate everyone. It sounds good in theory but just plain doesn't work in real life.

I wonder how Mr. Mustachio came by all that capital

I have not made any threats, merely stated what is the case. Perhaps it is not right and just and whatever else, but it still is the case.

That's why thieves come in the dark hours of the night.

Indeed. And it's an option among others you have.

>it is the case that in The Society to Come, if you violate property norms, you must be OK with "what comes next"
Now you're passing off a hypothetical society as immutably real? Sad!

I never said threats are "unjust," but a threat of violence is just that. At least I would never kill anyone over an object that isn't also me. Not that this is "wrong," it's just silly.

But the legal fiction says your property is you.

>srry we cant produce enough goods sweetie so no sharing :)
>*kills surplus cows to inflate prices*

I don't believe in it, and I don't enjoy killing people, so I wouldn't, even if they "harmed me" by taking my car, or something. I know that my property is something beneath me.

If you want to believe that you are your property, then by all means do so. Don't be surprised if this faulty notion is turned against you, though.

Not that guy but you did. "Don't do X else you get punished" is a threat

Now now, insofar as our society was coming society, tomorrows society is coming society, regardless of the form it takes.

>I don't enjoy killing people
Have you ever tried it?

It is a threat if I say "if you do x I will punish you." If I say "if a person in china does x, he will be punished", it's hardly a threat. I don't exactly have input in the matter, nor do I in the case of some user.

>"regardless of the form it takes"
>tries to ascribe the definite legal-moral form of reciprocal justice to it
ok

All societies heretofore have established rules and corresponding punishment in some form or other with particulars suited to their particular polities, which will of course rub some folks here and there the wrong way. Invoke Hume if you like, but I don't see that changing.

>"It won't necessarily have a specific form"
>but you already said it would have this one
>"Oh, but they all have that, so it doesn't count"
Wow, this is almost comical. What about pre-state societies without codified law?

I have tried killing living things, it's not for me. I feel like killing living things so much like me as to be part of the same species would damage me irreparably.

China is a nation-state in which you do not live, while the "coming society" is an even more abstract construction that you not only give content to, but also define it as containing yourself and the other person, who are both subject to its laws, which you fabricate.

No, police exists to capture criminals that violate property rights. The average citizen is expected to be a morally upright good Samaritan that respects property rights without having to be policed.

They had rituals, traditions, general expectations, and corresponding reactions to violation. Even with codified laws, we still have these, often in order to restrict the reach of rituals, traditions, expectations, and their traditional reactions.

Do I "live" in Veeky Forums, or your particular municipality? As for "coming society", reading an account of what exactly 2017 would be, written by a Roman of 124 BCE, we should find their account quite odd, or prescient if it matched our current outcome. If there writer were to simply state "2017 will likely have rules", we should not think this controversial.

Really now, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

See, we were talking about reciprocal justice, now you're talking about reciprocity in general. I am not denying the universality of the human expectation of reciprocity in a voluntary interaction, I am denying that there have always been formal expressions of this expectation. The goalposts are out of sight by now, anyway.

You didn't state, "it will have rules," you stated that it will have such and such a set of rules that relate to norms of private property, and this usually implies a sort of punishment. At this point you're just relying on the fogginess of your assertion.

>Really now, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Communism is anti individualist and evil

Then in that case China is the one threatening whoever is doing X. Lets not argue over schematics

>user asks genuine question
>/Pol/ And /leftypol/ eventually start flooding the thread being retarded

This board was a mistake

"We"? You're sorely mistaken. "Voluntary"? you are *sorely* mistaken.

> I am denying that there have always been formal expressions of this expectation.
Go ahead, it has not been asserted there has always formally been. State "I am denying that there is a soviet base on the far side of the moon", it has as much meaning.

>You didn't state, "it will have rules,"
I stated
>By all means, have a go at him, if you're alright with what comes next. In society to come, go ahead, have a go at someone you feel has slighted you in one form or another, if you're alright with what comes next.

Funnily enough, you interpreted it as such
>it is the case that in The Society to Come, if you violate property norms, you must be OK with "what comes next"

Really now, we started here:
>Communism organizes its material life on the basis of the confrontation and interplay of needs - which does not exclude conflicts and even some form of violence. Men will not turn into angels: why should they?

It should be quite clear as to my position on the matter, bruv.

>you stated that it will have such and such a set of rules that relate to norms of private property
You can of course substantiate this assertion, yes?

You've made it a semantic issue, you may as well follow it through to it's conclusion, reap what you sow and all.
I said to a friend, "you know, if the sun sets, it will rise in the morning." Have I threatened the sun, or has the earth?

>rather than answer the "genuine question," I'll complain about the responses to the thread so far

you were a mistake

>You've made it a semantic issue, you may as well follow it through to it's conclusion, reap what you sow and all.
>n-no u!
The sun setting is not a hypothetical though nor does the sun has any agency.

The same complaint can be made about your reply, fucking moron.

I'm starting from here and How am I to know which of the three you are? I can only make assumptions based on the following thread of conversation. I honestly thought you were this guy . So are you ?

>"We"? You're sorely mistaken.

Yea, I guess I was, in that. But are you seriously claiming that there's any material reason to expect positive reciprocity in a non-voluntary interaction?

The question was already answered, user, but it could have been done without the shitposts

Also, was it mentioning /pol/ or /leftypol/ that made you reply

>it could have been done without the shitposts

>You're threatening someone.
>no I'm not.
>let's not argue over semantics!

let me correct myself: hypothetically, if the sun sets, it will also rise. And in any case, I cannot threaten the sun any more than I can threaten some user on a mongolian throat-singing board. You lot are inputs from within a chinese room, for all I know.

>implying I am not right

Alright, that's fair, that was a bad assumption on my part. I do apologize. Yes that is me.

>But are you seriously claiming that there's any material reason to expect positive reciprocity in a non-voluntary interaction?
I am claiming that it's a bit off to suppose the reciprocity involved with punishment is very much voluntary, formal or otherwise.

But none of that, it's clear we got off on the wrong foot. How about we start fresh? Coming society, regardless of its form of property, will likely have rules and obligations, reactions for transgression, and perhaps even organized violence for some reason or other. However, it perhaps will not base itself on property.

This is precisely what I'm implying. How long have you been here? Do you want this place to be reddit? The ability to call people fucking illiterate faggot mongoloids is the major reason I come here

Yet why are you coming up with ridiculous and poorly worded analogies to push your point?

And I repeat again, the sun setting and rising is a force of nature, unlike human behavior it is not malleable. Nor does the sun have agency unlike China, you, that user and any State for that matter.

you didnt ask anyone
you dont have a "marxist professor"

the "value" would be gone since everyone had access to it for free

t. not hume

No fucking way, penis breath. Thats why I come here too, but I am sick of either /pol/ shills or /leftypol/tards constantly shitposting the same shit every day.

By the way I have been here for years and it only got this bad in last year or so

>you didnt ask anyone
>you dont have a "marxist professor"

kek im not lying.

>the "value" would be gone since everyone had access to it for free

wouldn't it be the personal property of whoever owned it though?

Didn't mean that reciprocal justice is voluntary, only that reciprocity in a positive (beneficial) sense can reasonably be expected prior to voluntary interactions with individuals whom you know to be receptive, or at least, whom you don't know to be callous. In the case of reciprocal justice, oddly enough, the performance of the "just act," i.e. the act that is meant to compensate for the "unjust" act, there is not really any reciprocity expected of the receiving party, other than that they take their punishment. For instance, when you're having sex, your partner expects you to be incredibly attentive, but if you get caught stealing a car, you're really not even "expected" to go to prison, since you've already violated private property. The justice isn't done for you, it is done to you, for the person who was "wronged," and to appease the mob, so it's more an interaction between the state and the people with you as an object.

Ah, I have agency, therefore to state an outcome in human affairs is to make an imperative. If a stated outcome is negative, it is quite obviously a threat. If not, a promise. At the very least, we are approaching a much better working definition, I must concede that. Nonetheless, let us put it to use, shall we?

I'll have you know that it appears I am going to be a father. Not just any father, mind you, but a father of british royalty. You see, I stated "if the duchess of cambridge makes the sex enough on the right days, she will become pregnant." It ended up being the case. I did not mean to promise such, but I did, and I must of course do as an honourable man ought to.

Oh yeah. That was a Hume thing. I just looked out the window and figured on something ridiculous, man. I mean, I don't think Hume figured you could threaten a sun. I certainly don't.

>The justice isn't done for you, it is done to you, for the person who was "wronged," and to appease the mob, so it's more an interaction between the state and the people with you as an object.
Indeed so, and this is the case whether or not punishment is codified or simply ritualized. My early statements are merely asserting that I expect this to remain the case, albeit with different particulars. You know, what exactly one can be punished for, whether it is written or not, whether it involves castration and/or having to marathon a season of friends.

>Oh yeah. That was a Hume thing. I just looked out the window and figured on something ridiculous, man. I mean, I don't think Hume figured you could threaten a sun. I certainly don't.
Of course you can't threaten the sun. Your definition of threaten includes causality.

Private property is whatever is used to generate profit
Personal property is the shit you own
If I was your Marxist professor I would fail your ass

No, you still don't get personal property. It's not yours do with as you wish nor is it inalienable. It's a contrivance based on the fact that for practical reasons, people might like to each have their own toothbrush rather than share. It's still socially owned. It's just the social norms dictate that you should use your designated toothbrush.

And if it was all public property, people would be shacking up 12 to a room, then some people would realize, wow, I could have my own suburban house that's vacant, and then move the fuck out.

Oh no, not at all. The statement "I will kill you" is obviously a threat, not a simple statement of fact, unless of course I were falling onto you whilst wearing a suit made of knives. We can perhaps interpret the statement in a variety of ways "I ought to kill you." "I mean to kill you", "I would quite like to kill you", there's preference and imperative. It remains whether or not I kill you, it's state as a threat remains.

The statement "if the sun set's, it will rise in the morning", well, the worst I can be is wrong. It should be quite strange to interpret this statement as "I very much would prefer it rise." Same to with the statement "if you commit what is considered a crime, you will probably be punished". It is strange to interpret it as "you ought to be punished."

that doesn't seem like a difficult question. housing could be seen as personal property because it is mostly not a source of capital. there are different ways to distribute it but you could trade it on the free market and it would not contradict socialism.

the difficult question is not who gets it but who decides whether we're going to build appartment blocks which would house many families or luxury villas housing one family.

More concrete example personal property.

It's like lockers in high school. It's yours to use, you have a designated locker meant just for you, because the point of a locker is for people to have their own.

But you don't own it. It can be taken away. You don't get to do whatever you want to it. You can't sell it. If for some reason they don't have enough lockers you might have to share with one other person. Your big full size locker when shared might suddenly become less desirable than a personal half size one.

McMansions in suburbs. Apartments on beachfronts.

Was that so hard?

But now your situation doesn't have any element of violence or agency in 'then' portion. Congrats moron.