You stated that its ok to OWN personal property (i.e. consumer goods) but not private property, as in the means of production. I gave you a simple scenario where the two overlap and asked where you draw the line. You say I MAY share them. I understand free choice. What I want you to tell me is when, under your standards, am I no longer allowed to own the tools.collegeboy64

I don't think you get my point. The problem is not that you simply own a hammer or that you want to create something with it; social relations are the problem. Let's put it this way, personal property becomes private property when it is used for wage labour.

so who produces in this valueless society,with what do they produce, on what metric does their production get dispersed, and what will keep them from becoming free riders?surrealnumber5

I think theone86 partially answered your question.

Where did I mention money? I thought we were talking about the ownership of property. I'm just trying to figure out when you think my tools stop being my tools and become the property of........................who?collegeboy64

You are asking me to give you answers based on an abstract scenario, but I'll try. Your tools do not have to stop being "yours", you may use them to work yourself or share them, in which case I guess they become a collective property.

[QUOTE="Martzel94"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]So if I own a saw a hammer and a screw driver they belong to me until I start using them to build furniture that I sell to my neighbors?collegeboy64

There is a significant difference between building a chair for your neighbour and employing a workforce to do it instead. It is only in the latter case that you directly make profit off someone's labour.

You are ignoring the fact that in a different economic system, economic relations would also change. Consider for example that certain forms of communism wish to abolish money altogether, your post then becomes completely irrelevant.

So if I own a saw a hammer and a screw driver they belong to me until I start using them to build furniture that I sell to my neighbors?collegeboy64

There is a significant difference between building a chair for your neighbour and employing a workforce to do it instead. It is only in the latter case that you directly make profit off someone's labour.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]When socialists talk about private property they are really referring to the private ownership of the means of production - not so much "personal" property like cars and houses to a lesser extent. That's not what socialism and communism really cares about - ultimately it's all about the power structure of the workplace. Should Daddy Warbucks own the means of production of a factory or should the workers own and manage the factory collectively and democratically? Who's ownership is justified? Capitalists say the former and socialists say the latter. But socialists and communists don't think that all forms of private ownership are unjust - some are, some aren't. sonicare

Sun_Tzu pretty much got it. What you confused OP, is personal property (consumer goods, etc.) and private property (private industry, enterprise, etc.). Communism aims to abolish only private property, since it, unlike let's say a toothbrush, allows for exploitation of labour.

One less nut-job in the world. Too bad this doesn't mean the end of communism in North Korea.xdude85

Why do people refer to NK as communist? They never were truly communist and nowadays they don't even call themselves as such, all former links to that word have been removed from their constitution.

Transhumanism, often abbreviated as H+ or h+, is an international intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.Stavrogin_

While I'm not convinced that merging with technology is desirable, I think that to some degree it's a potentially good idea. However, NOT in the current economic and political system. It could marginalize even more people - especially those who would not have the means to afford it, and it could possibly be used against us.

As in, the people producing the real wealth in society are being sacrificed to save the people who only play around with the money that represents that wealth.AnnoyedDragon

True, profit is often made through the exploitation of workers. Depriving a wage earner of the value of his/her labour increases profit, and capital accumulation is a key factor of capitalism. Hence rich can get richer and the poor get poorer. As someone else noted, such a system is unsustainable.

Well put. High risk, high reward.Dawq902

How come people involved in actual life-threatening jobs don't earn the most then?

Anyone can farm successfully.lancelot200

It isn't that easy to be successful in agriculture. Also, just because "anyone can do" a certain job, doesn't mean that it should be looked down upon, especially when it is an essential job e.g. a hospital without cleaners would not function well as the health standards of the facility (and in turn the patients) would quickly deteriorate.

[QUOTE="Martzel94"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Yeah, because your anecdotal evidence obviously obliterates any scientific study on the matter. :roll:MetalGear_Ninty

It's not a very reliable study though. Apparently it was carried out in only 4 countries and the "attractiveness" of the person was rated only by the interviewer which is, by far, not representative enough.

Precisely, you've criticised the study on a sound basis, however, no matter how bad the study you can't dismiss its conclusion based on anecdotal evidence of a few people who happened not to follow the general trend or pattern stated in the study.

I agree, but I wanted to point out that just because it's a "scientific study" doesn't mean it's unarguable.