Not really, private property is Capital and the means of production that reproduces society, by its very nature requiring labor its already a collective social phenomenon
Personnel property on the other hand is just that, ‘personal’, its stuff that doesn’t require economic social relations with other human beings to use
I think the thing is that communists especially tend to cling to their names for specialised concepts dearly, although you see this with anarchists too—just mention the terms “libertarian” or “anarcho-capitalism” and they’re likely to quote that Murray Rothbard passage about how “their side” had “captured the term [libertarian] from our enemies” and how “We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical”, but I digress—and that’s because a whole lot of Marxist theory rests upon these words that are specialised terms to signify Marxist concepts, such as the term “imperialism” which means a lot more than just “an empire expanding itself”.
It does make it difficult for an outsider to start engaging with Marxist theory because it requires a fair bit of reading up and there’s a trap that some Marxists fall into when discussing these concepts where they use Marxist-specific terms to outsiders who aren’t aware of the Marxist definitions and concepts yet they expect those outsiders to just know what they’re talking about, which leads to people talking across one another.
I guess the other option would be to abandon those Marxist-specific terms which would mean that newer writing wouldn’t align to the preceding Marxist theory and there would be a need to bring everyone up to speed on the new terms being used for the same concepts, but trying to get consensus on what new terms should be used would be an impossible task given the fact that it’s not uncommon for different Marxist tendencies to be bitter enemies (for example, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists [i.e. “Stalinists”]) and there’s the belief that it would be a capitulation and it would be ceding ground to liberalism by doing so.
I think that the prevailing notion is that Marxists need to do the reading and to get across these concepts in order to really consider themselves Marxist and while that has its own downsides it also makes it more difficult for infiltration from fascists and feds because when someone hasn’t done the reading it stands out like a sore thumb to those who have.
I can’t find the CIA documents off hand at the moment but there was a memo lamenting how difficult it is for CIA agents to infiltrate radical groups (I think anarchist ones) because it’s like they’re speaking a different language when they talk politics lol.
these terms were specifically recuperated. the confusion about private property was deliberately created to prevent class solidarity. the original meaning of the term was the Marxist one and there’s no better term to replace it with. “means of production” is even more technical and prone to confusion.
prior to Marx, Locke and Smith used the term property without adjectives exclusively and the former argued that humans had a natural right to property. Marx distinguished personal and private property. liberal economists then picked it up and started using private property in the same sense that Locke and Smith had used property. it’s a bit hard to cite this as search engines just turn up liberal economists. but that’s the gist of it.
The problem with abandoning specific terms is that it gives into the liberal mentality of words needing to be more “vibe based” than having clear definitions. This is how we get meaningless buzzwords like “authoritarian” and “whataboutism”
And ultimately, if we did make a new set of terms to use and somehow managed to agree upon them, the liberal media would just water those terms down as they have done for most Marxists terms before that.
The important thing is to explain terms as you go through them. I usually explain the concept, then just use the word to describe that concept, so they know what I’m talking about.
I would say in educating people it is important to talk directly with them first before giving them any theory to read though, because as you’ve pointed out, a lot of people don’t actually know the meaning of a lot of words and would just get confused and frustrated. It makes it a slow process, but there isn’t really any other option right now. At least where I am in the west, anti-intellectualism is huge. You have to drag people kicking and screaming into learning things, or do so via presenting it in a format they will consume without thinking (like fiction).
That sounds like it would get confusing when trying to encourage people to be communist.
Nah you just talk about like you just did
Not really, private property is Capital and the means of production that reproduces society, by its very nature requiring labor its already a collective social phenomenon
Personnel property on the other hand is just that, ‘personal’, its stuff that doesn’t require economic social relations with other human beings to use
The confusion comes from personal and private property being conceptually tangled after a lifetime of bourgeois conditioning.
I wouldn’t deny that.
I think the thing is that communists especially tend to cling to their names for specialised concepts dearly, although you see this with anarchists too—just mention the terms “libertarian” or “anarcho-capitalism” and they’re likely to quote that Murray Rothbard passage about how “their side” had “captured the term [libertarian] from our enemies” and how “We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical”, but I digress—and that’s because a whole lot of Marxist theory rests upon these words that are specialised terms to signify Marxist concepts, such as the term “imperialism” which means a lot more than just “an empire expanding itself”.
It does make it difficult for an outsider to start engaging with Marxist theory because it requires a fair bit of reading up and there’s a trap that some Marxists fall into when discussing these concepts where they use Marxist-specific terms to outsiders who aren’t aware of the Marxist definitions and concepts yet they expect those outsiders to just know what they’re talking about, which leads to people talking across one another.
I guess the other option would be to abandon those Marxist-specific terms which would mean that newer writing wouldn’t align to the preceding Marxist theory and there would be a need to bring everyone up to speed on the new terms being used for the same concepts, but trying to get consensus on what new terms should be used would be an impossible task given the fact that it’s not uncommon for different Marxist tendencies to be bitter enemies (for example, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists [i.e. “Stalinists”]) and there’s the belief that it would be a capitulation and it would be ceding ground to liberalism by doing so.
I think that the prevailing notion is that Marxists need to do the reading and to get across these concepts in order to really consider themselves Marxist and while that has its own downsides it also makes it more difficult for infiltration from fascists and feds because when someone hasn’t done the reading it stands out like a sore thumb to those who have.
I can’t find the CIA documents off hand at the moment but there was a memo lamenting how difficult it is for CIA agents to infiltrate radical groups (I think anarchist ones) because it’s like they’re speaking a different language when they talk politics lol.
these terms were specifically recuperated. the confusion about private property was deliberately created to prevent class solidarity. the original meaning of the term was the Marxist one and there’s no better term to replace it with. “means of production” is even more technical and prone to confusion.
Do you have evidence for that claim?
prior to Marx, Locke and Smith used the term property without adjectives exclusively and the former argued that humans had a natural right to property. Marx distinguished personal and private property. liberal economists then picked it up and started using private property in the same sense that Locke and Smith had used property. it’s a bit hard to cite this as search engines just turn up liberal economists. but that’s the gist of it.
Thanks, that’s enough to go on!
The problem with abandoning specific terms is that it gives into the liberal mentality of words needing to be more “vibe based” than having clear definitions. This is how we get meaningless buzzwords like “authoritarian” and “whataboutism”
And ultimately, if we did make a new set of terms to use and somehow managed to agree upon them, the liberal media would just water those terms down as they have done for most Marxists terms before that.
The important thing is to explain terms as you go through them. I usually explain the concept, then just use the word to describe that concept, so they know what I’m talking about.
I would say in educating people it is important to talk directly with them first before giving them any theory to read though, because as you’ve pointed out, a lot of people don’t actually know the meaning of a lot of words and would just get confused and frustrated. It makes it a slow process, but there isn’t really any other option right now. At least where I am in the west, anti-intellectualism is huge. You have to drag people kicking and screaming into learning things, or do so via presenting it in a format they will consume without thinking (like fiction).