this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2026
217 points (97.4% liked)
Socialism
6997 readers
304 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm a noob at this and I kind of dont understand. Could i still own a house or like a couple acres ? Or would there be no ownership?
In addition to what others have said, the boundaries between these can change according to the society and time. Fifty years ago, a computer would have been 'private property'. Nowadays most computers are 'personal'.
Whether you can own a house or a couple of acres under a hypothetical socialist system would mainly depend on population density. The Soviets used to give young people large tracts of land in rural areas because land isn't really a scarce resource in Russia. (Vietnam still does this, but the plots are smaller.) On the other hand, Singapore, a capitalist country, has no private land ownership because land is so scarce.
Socialists want to eliminate Private Property, which is to say property that generates capital: farms, factories, stores, etc. While retaining personal property. Stuff like you're house, your tv, your toothbrush, etc.
Now, there are some exceptions to this. If you go to Cuba, you'd find that most of the agricultural land isn't collectivised, but is rather owned by individuals or families, who's interests are represented by a mass organization of small holding farmers.
The historical specificities of Cuba's land reform process meant that Cuban socialism retained a sector of small scale private ownership, within a Socialist system.
The point Marx is making is that under capitalism, as much as they talk about private property being a fundamental natural right, the consolidation of capital means that most people never have the opportunity to access that supposed right, or reap its benefits
Home ownership is a lot higher in currenntly existing socialist states than in their capitalist peers. Do what you will with that information.
Not all housing is equal, at least in so called capitalist peers, where lots of people who can afford houses in small town or village are not buying that as they live in big cities and are saving up.
I'd like to know if the housing in the socialist peers is considered equal, regardless of size and location?
In Marxism communism personal ownership is still allowed (you own your house and belongings etc.). What's not is the control of the means of production or any property that lets its owner live off others' labor, say factories, land, mines etc. by capitalists and argues that they should be the social or common property of the producers/workers.
The distinction between personal belongings and means of production is not at all clear-cut. In what flavor of socialism would I be allowed to own which dual-use goods? Examples:
The distinction is a class distinction. Capitalism functions to.ensure that the greatest number of people do not own enough to be self-sufficient. Peasants under feudalism were self sufficient and communal, so the first job of the capitalists in countries that were industrializing was to buy up most/all the communal land, kick everybody off of it and force people to still work it for a paltry wage. There were still people who owned houses and land during this period, but legal and economic pressures forced people to give up what they owned and get a waged job. Even today, small family owned farms fall into debt and get bought up by large landowning companies/trusts and converted into farmland or data centers. It isn't happening to everyone at once, but its a gradual process where it happens to a few people here and there. Some people buy farms and are successful, there are always contradictions and exceptions.
If you are able to sustain yourself 100% on your own production, that's extremely rare. My cousin was a nurse practitioner and stacked cash his entire life, and in the last few years became like a yeoman. He butchers his own meat, he grows much of his own food, but still buys 10-20% of what he needs, mostly flour and grains. Under socialism, at least any socialism that I would fight for, he would be left alone, because he really isn't the problem. The family that owns an ice cream shop or a bakery, particularly small businesses who help people, contribute to social movements, are against ice are pro Palestine, pay their workers well, these people own capital but they aren't the problem.
The social relations you are describing are so far in the future that they are virtually impossible to understand. The first socialist revolution will shift power from the capitalists to the workers, but will not abolish private property. This will begin a phase of transition where private property will be collectivised. But the biggest barrier to collectivization isn't just who owns what, it is the divisions in the working class. There are a lot of social relations that have to be "worked out", and nobody is able to create a one sized fits all solution for everywhere (socialism is necessarily international) at once. Some places might hold on to private property and become more social democrat, retaining their ruling class in order to have higher wages for workers. Other areas might try to become fully communist. Some places will try to ban all private industry, some will collectivise some large industries and leave others privately owned.
Social conditions are deeply contradictory because people are contradictory. So trying to logically work these things out is always gonna be incomplete and imperfect. What matters is the working class continually working together to create better conditions for more people. Eventually, this collective effort will reach like a tipping point, and the next revolution will occur, which will be more humane, more democratic, and less violent than any that came before.
There is a ton of real world struggles that can actually be won (universal healthcare, universal jobs guarantee, robust social safety net, improved transportation/sanitation/education) that can be accomplished by just taxing the rich to the hilt. But in order to get there, we need solidarity and class unity. Once we have that, we can reorganize society in ways where the answers to your questions will have clearer solutions.
Socialism isn't just a future, it is being able to see the resent society, the people in it and their needs and experiences, and working for a better society. IMO individual private/personal property questions will make more sense once the conditions for them have a concrete basis.
thank you for this thoughtful explanation! great points, especially the need to tax the rich. finding a viable way to redistribute wealth is a necessary prerequisite to socioeconomic progress imo.
That is not "letting the owner live off other people's labor" it's letting the owner live off their own labor. Do other people have to come over to your house and garden to make things? They should have their own house and garden. If they then want to come over to hang out and make crafts, then what would possibly be the problem?
Again, so long as a type of tool is accessible to anyone, there's no issue with someone owning their own set. Whether it's a musician with an instrument or a plumber or a mechanic that owns their own tools, there's not really a problem. Nobody's going around confiscating everyone's wrenches for some ideological reason.
Suppose there's some very expensive instrument, say a massive pipe organ in some church. If that organ is not being used for profit, then it doesn't matter, but if it is being used that way, then perhaps it would make sense if various musical groups were allowed to use it occasionally, since it might not be practical to ensure everyone has their own pipe organ.
In a modern economy where everyone has their own computer, that's completely unnecessary. Suppose there's some remote village somewhere where they only have one computer. In that case, surely it makes sense for access to be shared.
Repeating myself a lot here. Socialists aim to make transportation accessible to everyone, which generally means investing in public transit. But there are cases where it might make more sense to make it easier for everyone to have a car, like a remote region where public transportation is less viable, or a situation where people already own cars. I think most socialists would favor a gradual phasing out of cars in favor of public transit for efficiency, accessibility, and environmental reasons. A socialist state that doesn't already have cars probably wouldn't prioritize them, but that depends on the material conditions (as I said about rural regions).
What will you do with those couple of acres?
Farming, cattle and poultry. A storehouse, a small factory, and a separate kitchen house/pantry.
Depends on how industrious one is, and how much hiring and help one can do.
If you're hiring then you are own the means of production that should be shared by the workers.
Not OP, but I would set up a basketball halfcourt, grow some weed, have a mead shed
Not in China, it's kinda like Canada. You don't own the land you lease it. It's yours until the government deems it not.
We dont own land in the US either, we are on a perpetual lease from the government. Stop making that yearly lease payment called property tax and the government will evict you from their property and steal your assets
And the US? Try not paying property taxes on the land you "own" for a while and see how much you own that land compared to the government.
In China, the government can do the same to your house/land even if you pay all your "dues" timely.
So can most countries it's called eminent domain
you can delay that with lawyers in most civilized countries
As you can in China I'd advise looking into nail houses where you can delay them so long that you don't even have to give up your house/land. Most people just choose not to given the new accomodation is generally better/more modern alongside a payout.
Also
Adolf is that you?