Private vs Personal Property
Articles,  Blog

Private vs Personal Property

Too often I’ve seen people talk about the radical left wanting to abolish private property they just told me out there they don’t care about private property. They will destroy it. Abolition of private property. you know, that thing that is essential to the fundamental Bulwark of freedom I love that antifa just has an absolute respect for people’s rights and their private property and this is true But it’s not being used in the same way of what is traditionally viewed which leads to of course some understandable confusion so here’s how a socialist such as myself defines it bare in mind this all works around the parameters of the capitalist system that we live in Private property is property which is used to accumulate profit. this can include such examples: A road A limousine A railroad A Factory A restaurant A production studio A forest A lake, Oh hell A mountain So now we must ask what is personal property personal property is, to put it simply the things you own including your house your car your camera Your TV Your computer Your bed Your oven And yes, your toothbrush It’s worth bearing in mind there is no specific list so to speak All these things can technically be used for private profit-making devices but if you own them individually or as a group for the purposes of use Then no person has a problem with this The problem arises when the social condition of said property Starts depriving people of it for use in the market economy Otherwise known as Antagonism You might ask – but don’t they deserve such property, seeing as, you know, they earned it No! The relations of Private property are entrenched in violence and enclosure The commons formerly used for the way of free access were gradually turned away from Legal acts or by a violent Revolution by merchants as an experiment go talk to a capitalist and ask him how he came to garner such property then ask him how his fore-bearers came to garner it and when they eventually comes the end They should tell you there was probably garnered by violence In which case challenge him to a duel Now this can raise some problematic situations So for example: What if something owned 1,000 acres of land And used it entirely for the purposes of leisure without making any money off of it Well, then you might need to ask How on Earth is somebody supporting 1,000 acres of land without putting it to any use And probably what comes of this is that they are exploiting profit in other ways to supplement this In which case you need to ask them whether or not they can justify 1,000 acres of land simply for their own personal leisure Or can it be put to a better measure Now obviously no individual can constantly own a railway for personal use Which is why there’s a third type of property Collective property Whereby it is owned by a group or and for society at Large the Engel This is I believe the private property should be transferred over the workers use So they can be used collectively for a common good Specifically the means of production or basically how everything comes to be created in the first place For process in the economy and in many leftists’ minds to later be used in conjunction with a revolution of Sorts to transfer over into Communism There are of course many nuances that come with this question such as occupancy and use But this video isn’t going to go into the detail of such things Merely describing the basic principles of private versus personal If you want to find out more about the nuances I suggest you go to read it or anarchist FAQ So in summary we want their property we don’t want yours apart from Sargon’s My things You know, maybe for the sake of semantics We should just call it capitalist property and leave it there because you know makes life so much easier


  • BadMouseProductions

    Unfortunately I forgot to mention the difference between one's own labour and Exploited Labour time and many people have been arguing for their own private property by arguing about their own labour time. Please check the description for a run down.

  • Nicolas GLEMOT

    Actually, there's a French marxist economist called Bernard Friot who's been very influential in my thinking (you may want to check him if you speak French (if you don't you'll have some trouble understanding himcause he uses a lot of technical terms)), and this guy uses the words "lucrative property" to designate property which allows to make profit, and "use property" ("propriété d'usage"), for the property that you use yourself (this includes personal and collective property, as they're essentially different forms of the same type of property (things you use for yourself instead of renting them)). He advocates that the easiest way out of Capitalism is by fusing the models of cooperatives and public services, that is collectively owned means of production and salaries paid through "cotisations" (I don't know if the word is the same in English), since it ensures financial security, contrarily to small scale cooperatives, which can easily be faced with these issues, and it enables people to earn a lifelong salary.

  • Coby Washo

    0:14 It is literally clarified what is meant by private property on the same page that Carl highlights. I guess that is one of the drawbacks of not knowing how to read.

  • TheNeomaster15

    Your logic is flawed. Just because thousands of years ago someone stole some land through violence does not justify killing someone today for it. Look at it this way, the capitalist spent time and energy accumulating wealth and used that wealth to buy the land, the capitalist did not use violence to obtain the land therefore does not deserve to be robbed of it. If you push the idea that it is ok to use violence because violence was used in the past then what you will end up with is everyone killing everyone because everything has blood, every piece of land has blood in it and simply giving it to the worker will not wipe it clean. 

    Secondly what right do you have to tell someone how they use their property? You are upset if someone uses 1000 acres of land for leisure because it could be put to better use? Well your house is good space to put more wind turbines so you need to give up your home because the wind turbines would benefit society.

  • Ava Turner

    calling it “capitalist property” is a good suggestion tbh. i usually try to circumvent the misunderstanding by calling it “exploitative property”, which fosters questions and conversations rather than immediate misconceptions and hostility.

  • Persuasion Science Marketing

    Okay, I have two questions – 1.) If I use the car I own to accumulate resources, would the car become private property and be disallowed? 2.) I work for myself as a digital marketer. I don't have "means of production" other than my mind (you've already acknowledged a computer counts a personal property). If I use my mind via my marketing/persuasion skills to better someone else's life, can I accumulate resources in that way? Or would my mind be disallowed as being private property?

  • RED6UA

    A question regarding your argument at 1:39, so if im understanding this correctly, no one owns property because our ancestors obtained it through theft. How is this relevant? The fact that our ancestors stole certain properties has no bearing on current ownership because the current owner is not responsible for the ancestors actions. The fact that those properties were stolen is not his fault nor is there anything he couldve done to rectify that.

  • Alex Dunphy

    Why do Marxists never understand value? Why don't they recognize the work and risk that business owners take on? If a person owns themselves, why can they not trade their time to another in return for something they want?

  • mark patterson

    In real estate they talk about real property as the land and anything and anything permanently affixed to it. Which also includes fixtures; appliances, the sprinkler system, ex…
    Personal property is all the stuff you bring to the property. Like crops, cattle, anything you bring into the building that’s not physically bolted down.
    So I’ve always imagined a collectivization as, the people in the community collectively own a community land trust and democratically decide what happens to it. That community freely associates with adjacent communities. These associations would handle big picture stuff like the administration of utilities, the hospitals, schools, ex…
    Thinks like factories, shops & stores once previously owned by corporations, now belong to the people who work there.
    In that respect, things function very similar to how they do today. The major difference is the social revolution. A revolution in the way we relate to each other. Collectivization comes as a result of the social revolution and continues long after. Socialism is only the result of a successful social revolution.

  • Alexander

    I want to believe this as the ideals seem correct to me. But what if someone genuinely worked hard to accumulate enough money to set up a factory, not all wealth was accumulated by violence. Also if you transfer the means of production from private ownership to collective ownership, how will it be run, who will decide what the factory produces. The state? I know state run firms are not as bad as many seem to think, I still don't see that as a good permanent solution. The USSR tried it and it was alright at best. Tools and mechanical products (such as engines, electric motors, air compressors etc.) from the former USSR are great, but often there were shortages of these products. Same with food. The State should run some things collectively (natural resources, transport, power, town construction, military industry). But how can the state produce cars and food effectively.

  • jollyrodger22 77

    1:46 We hear the idea of private property is based in violence and at 2:57 we see an animation of someone having their factory stolen presumably violently to be given over to public ownership. Really breaking the chain communists

  • Charzor

    Have you ever thought why people buy land to begin with? You know, to make farms, accumulate resources, create a house with running water etc.

    That waterfall you mentioned could be used to sell clean water. That clean water can be sent countries and villages that don't have clean running water. The owner of that waterfall you mentioned had an invested in keeping the water clean. If this waterfall you mentioned would be public instead of private, wouldn't that just pollute the water?

    If you built a cosy house out of wood and raw materials, wouldn't you have an invested interest to protect your house? Just like the owner of the waterfall, the owner of the land.

  • Sam Kruger

    Why would anyone deserve property that they bought and paid for??? It truly is baffling what those capitalist pigs would do to drive economies and increase the standard of living for everyone. Disgusting bourgeoisie.

  • Quinn The Quartz

    Is it just me, but they could say no property in exchange of personal property as how they treat private property and the workers 2:51. So either you own land or do not. Realisticly not everyone is going to buy a huge ass piece of land without a use. Heard of farmers?

  • Ajg0r

    The whole idea is: I know much better how things should be used than the guy who owns them/anyone else. Baffling how arogant this dudes point of view is.

  • Andrew Stirling

    I find the idea of abolishing private-or “capitalist property” absolutely asinine from a civil liberties perspective. So what if I’m using my property for personal gain in the marketplace? How the flying hell does that exploit or harm anyone?

  • Mikey Shmelby

    There is no distinction between private property and personal property. Once property is owned, it makes no difference what the owner does with his property. Whether he brushes his teeth with his personal/private property or generates wealth with his personal/private property, it's still his personal/private property. Silly socialists want want the government to have open-ended discretion to decide what property they can take from people. And btw, this toothbrush shit, if I do find ways to profit off of my toothbrush then socialists WILL come for my toothbrush. That's the whole point. It's nobodies business if I use my toothbrush to brush my teeth or generate wealth, it's personal and private property.

  • Jack 01101110 01100101 01110010 01100100

    just asking a few questions, i like an open mind.
    -what happens to the guy who built the factory?
    -who maintains the factory?
    -are you a socialist or a communist?
    -couldn't someone exploit the public means of production just as easily as the private ones?
    -who runs the factories?
    -is there management in the factories?
    -how could we transition into this soc/communist state?
    -just a thought that occurred while running this through my head, "grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."
    -is you want to live in a social state, why not move to Germany?
    -nah never mind, gas is expensive there. kinda crap :/
    please reply, i'm making up my mind.

  • 42billybob

    "In addition to Private Property being used for profit, what is also crucial is that it must be exploiting other people's labour for profit."

    Can I rent out my basement?
    If I plant a tree, do I own it? Can I literally eat the fruit of my labour?
    Is food private property? Can I keep a stockpile in case a natural disaster happens? If a disaster does happen and I'm the only one with food am I allowed to be the asshole to who feeds his family or do I have to give out what little I have, still not feed everyone, and die along with everyone else?
    How does a forest, mountain, or lake exploit people's labour?
    How does me keeping a factory I built specifically to profit from deprive anyone of a factory? (ie. If I'm not allowed to keep it, I don't consider it worthwhile to build… either way, no one else has a factory.)
    If the factory is 100% autonomous… then can I own it?
    If the community is OK with throwing garbage in the lake, is it OK if I get together with some friends that don't want to drink garbage water, find another lake, fence it off, and keep out anyone we suspect is going to pollute it?

    My point is that the distinction is based on subjective intuition and it falls apart the moment you touch an edge case and someone gets a little creative with use of their personal property. (The moment they capitalise on their opportunities.) Which will happen as people like security & not everyone is going to always be 100% certain the community as a whole will be able to provide.

    Since the distinction is so subjective, there may as well be no distinction. It's literally just whoever's in charge arbitrarily deciding what can and can't be taken based on what's convenient at the time. The moment something becomes a scarce commodity that is "needed", you can suddenly call it "profit". And if anyone other than the owner contributed any labour at all it can be asserted to have been "exploitative", since consent to an exchange doesn't count as consent when the state mob decides they don't like the terms of that exchange. Private property vs personal property effectively amounts to "the mob is allowed to take whatever they think they need from you, and is likely to do it when it's least convenient for you".

  • Everten Plaza

    If personal property is anything I own and private property is something you OWN to produce profit then how is there any difference. And if you want to abolish private property you are therefore destroying any mode for profit, will you be telling me that a communist factory, road, railway, etc, suddenly is not private property despite it’s purpose being to make profit? Or is it only the capitalist factories, roads, and railways, the ones that do the exact same thing?

  • Blackforest98

    The problem still remains that you want to take the stuff that other people have built up through hard work.
    If I may ask, what's your opinion on a company like Microsoft, or Tesla?

  • Heartless Capitalist

    This all breaks down once you employ people to use your toothbrush to clean other people's shoes.

  • Kai E. Yearsley

    For anyone who is angrily opposed to this video, at the very least listen to a free audiobook of the communist manifesto. It will literally take less than two hours and you'll know what you are talking about.

  • SquirrelHill1971

    3:32: "In summary, we want their property. We don't want yours."

    That's a huge lie.

    They always go after the little guy first.

  • SquirrelHill1971

    At 0:10 on the screen, he highlights the following text from the Communist Manifesto:

    "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

    However, at 0:27, he refers to "a socialist such as myself."

    He then goes on to say that he supports common ownership of the means of production.

    Apparently, at least this one person considers socialism and communism to be the same thing.

    He does say that he supports personal property, such as people owning their own personal toothbrush, TV, and car. Apparently, he likes to ignore the severe shortages of these things in countries where the
    government owns the means of production. The waiting list for a car can be years or even decades. And every such country always has a shortage of toilet paper.

    Wouldn't it be far better for the means of production to be under private ownership, and then for the government to give money to poor peoples so they can buy the things they want?

    This guy should try talking to people who actually lived in and fled from countries where the means of production was under common ownership.

    Interestingly, he never specifically says "government ownership," even though any and all large scale attempts at "communal ownership" have always ended up with the government owning things.

  • JJ Frost

    Ok that's all dandy and all, but can i own land? Can I have my many acres of woodlands where I can live in isolation, I don't want to be involved with any community I want too live off the grid living off the land with a woman to cook for me and bear my children. And what if I want to grow some patotos, pot, or brew some moonshine, can I sell it to a people in the nearest town? Would that all be allowed in a socialist society?

  • Michael Price

    Ok so the first two things you mention could be used to make profit. So what is the difference between "personal" and "private" property if the same things can be either? Because if it's how it's used then I can own a factory if I want. I'm not going to use it for profit. Just keeping it so you don't have it.

  • Michael Price

    So basically I can use as much capital as I want, provided its "in a group"? What? Why is this a category?'

  • Michael Price

    Oh so I can have capital goods, I just have to let people steal them if they want them. Yeah that'll work.

  • Michael Price

    So because some other people did bad things to get property I can't use my property, however I got it, for profit? Why? I may well have earned that property and indeed may have earned it within the context of your socialist paradise. If i can earn a car in your socialist paradise I can earn a taxi, becuase and here's the bit you missed THEY'RE THE SAME THING.

  • Jet Kwan

    Our road
    Our limousine
    Our railroad
    Our factory
    Our restaurant
    Our production studio
    Our forest
    Our lake
    Our mountain

  • ScienceTube

    What a retarded argument.
    The way by which something came to be in my property is irrelevant for the legitimacy of my ownership of it – unless it can be traced back to its legitimate owner of whom it was stolen like a year ago. Noone cares if there was violence involved in the process 400 years ago (when violence was still considered a legitimate form of solving conflicts) because
    1. it was considered legitimate back then, and
    2. it cannot be traced back to the original owner, because they are dead.
    Also, the fact that you might come across violence when tracing back the origin of the property (if that was even possible; I for one don't know exactly how the people I bought it from might have acquired it) is not that much of a surprise – or shouldn't be, considering that you have made an infinite loop of looking at different things whose exit condition is finding violence. This is obviously not a valid political argument for anything.
    And finally, challenging someone to a duel for their property is laughable. We don't do that any more, because we have improved over the people who did. You could say that, in the end, it's still violence or the threat of violence that protects our rightful property, but it's the violence of the state. Noone wants their property to be taken from them, so everyone agreed that we should use violence against the criminals who violate it. It's a democratic decision – I thought you like democracy so much.

    Not even to mention the fact that decrying all property – ALL OF IT!!! – as illegitimate because at some point hundreds of years in the past, it was violently taken from someone, while simultaneously advocating the violent acquisition of everything by the state is just a little bit hypocritical. You don't think violence is an illegitimate form of acquiring property, remember? I am the one who is against violence, not in favor of it.

  • Daniel Jones

    In an honest attempt to understand ….

    Following the logic here, it seems socialist want to right a past wrong by doing the exact same thing to someone else.

    A factory for example was built by brute force and (at least the threat of) violence.

    So….now You want to use brute force and (at least the threat of) violence to give it to someone else?

  • wasabimanic

    Your wife Your husband Your Kids Your opinion . When I was sleeping rough in Holland Park Did I have a Right to "occupy " the garden of a very wealthy/ famous person ? Was "his" garden his personal or private property ? If it makes a difference his name was Tony Benn MP

  • Soarel

    The distinction exists only within your mind, the line is arbitrary.
    You don't deserve my house because you mowed my lawn.

  • Don't Askme

    The idea that if you look back into history you will find that all wealth was garnered by violence is absolute bullshit. You can see people becoming wealthy through innovation and hard work all around you. Their kids will inherit their wealth. Socialist are nuts.

  • Rabeet Ahsan

    I have a question:
    He said that your house is your personal property and so is your car and such thing.
    But if you sell them at a profit like you bough your house for $ 300,000 and then a few years later sell it for say $ 500,000 and even though the total amount of money you spent on the house is still lowers than selling price of it?
    Is that allowed under the socialist doctrine or do you have to just sell the house at what you've put in it?

  • godAlseif

    Just because it was once taken by force doesn't mean that force was justified or that it's ok for you to take it by force now. Then you're just putting yourself on the same level as the people you say have done something wrong. Also the question of whether or not someone is using their property effeciently can be asked about anything. The hundreds of acres of land for personal use is an easy case but what about the harder cases, how much property can a person use for leisure before it can be taken by others to be better utilized? Who gets to decide what is and isn't efficient and where do we sacrifice efficiency for individual rights?

  • Reviews Because-I-Care

    Anything that could be used collectively should not be anyone's property. Houses? If you live in a communist society, you can travel wherever you want and be provided with a place to stay, and good company. There should not be such thing as property. Toothbrush? Get a toothbrush for someone who needs it. It's an item of individual hygiene. Food? If you can't sell it, as there's no money, you just take the amount you can consume.

  • Derek Williams

    Most private property is not acquired by violence. In libertarianism private property is never acquired by violence. The land I live on was at one point given as a homestead from the US government, as was half of the United States. The Native Americans sold land to the US and many areas had no operable claims. The first person who owns property is the first person to claim and control it, then they may sell it to other people. Where is the violence? The ideas you describe are dangerous and wrong, both practically and morally.

  • Stranded in Utah

    Transferred? Such a benign word for stealing a factory or farm. Why can't Marxist's build their own stuff and run it as they wish? Why must they always take other people's things?

  • Stand In Stan

    A better way of distinguishing between the two kinds of property are between consumer good and producer goods. The ambition of private property meant the abolition of privately owned producer goods.

  • Anonymous User

    This is a mixture of personal incredulity and argumentum ad populum.
    If someone owns land, there is no ethical or intellectual justification for taking that land from them.
    Just because a gang wants something doesn't make it ethical to take it from an individual.
    Just because a group needs something doesn't make it ethical to take it from an individual.
    The argument of "but it must have been originally been taken by force" is an ipse dixit+argumentum ad ignorantiam argument, and is also hypocritical (I know, tu quoque).
    To put it another way: Why the does the group have the right to apply force (for ownership), but the individual doesn't have the right to peaceful ownership?
    Argumentum ad populum isn't an ethical argument; unless you've stating 'might makes right'.
    If one attempts to put forward the utilitarian argument of 'most good for the most people', then one also has to prove that the majority of said people are inherently good or utilitarian themselves.
    The argument against socialism is that people, even majorities, can be demonstrated be to destructive regardless of the materials given to them.
    But that's a secondary point; the first point still stands that argumentum ad populum isn't an ethical argument.

  • Roi

    All it takes is one guy to go out to the street and offer to brush your teeth for a dollar, and toothbrushes are now a means of production… everyone turn your toothbrushes in.

  • ArtRoomProductions

    2:00 i talked to my grandfather about how he acquired his land. He said he bought. Mind you his father and mother were born on the Navajo reservation. That dirty capitalist old man must of used force!

  • Tim Pauwels

    Good explanation. This is rarely made clear, so most people think their house/car/TV are their “private property” and think the Left wants to take them.

    So most trespassing signs should actually say “Personal Property -KEEP OUT!”…

  • oneinfinity

    Ok so private property is bad because it was once acquired using violence and now you want to violently redistribute that property to the workers. Got it!

  • Saeed Baig

    So if I have a car that I bought with my own money that I use for myself, that's personal property and is ok.
    But if I start renting that car out to others, suddenly it becomes private property and that's bad.

    What's wrong with that though? If me and the renter both make a voluntary agreement that they can borrow the car for a price, where's the harm in that? Clearly I want their money more than I want my car (for a limited time at least), and they want my car more than they want their money. I agree, they agree, it's a win-win.

  • Dhruva Shah

    Communist : how did you get that factory
    me : i bought it from the previous owner
    Communist : how did the previous owner get it?
    me : dont know dont care, as long as i have the legal papers i own it

  • Gabi Ghita

    So it sounds like the general idea would be that the more labour you put into someone's property, the more ownership you gain of it over time. That seems refreshingly reasonable and fair. Thanks, Bad Mouse!

  • Warren Mitchum

    I justify owning 1,000 acres of land just sitting there by saying I own it. It is mine to do with as I please. If you force me to do something with it, then you are infringing on my rights asshole. This is why communism sucks.

  • Bill Kong

    The problem is there is no essential distinction. Can I use my computer to run an online store? Or mine for bitcoin? Can I AirBNB my house when I'm away? Can I run my own workshop and charge people if they want to use it? Can I rent out my fancy clothes to my friend when I'm not using them?

    Absolutely everything can in principle be used to make profit given some creativity.

  • aman rahmani

    I'm just curious about how people will respond but doesn't different labor have different value based on how the consumer values it a guy can work 8 hours picking a pound of rice while another can spend 3 hours coding a fix for a bad computer problem or something shouldn't the latter be valued more do to it benefiting more people and fewer people being able to do it

  • Joe Noyes

    Funny how the lunatic leftist liberals push socialism so hard and then they deny that the ties to Nazis Adolf Hitler Joseph Stalin it irony

  • Cian McCabe

    "He said all this land is my masters, but at that I stood shaking my head, for no man has the right to own mountains, anymore than the deep ocean bed"

  • Paul Pierce

    The world doesn’t fit into these “defined” categories. Ex I have 20 acres with a pond. I have 20 walnut trees. I get bout $400.00 a year from walnuts ….it’s kinda irregular one year I get 800 the next year maybe $200.00 obviously this isn’t a “real” income it’s just some petty side cash. Mostly I have to property of “leisure” so wtf do I have to give up my home and move to some shitty city because you don’t like “capitalism” can you see why I would idk pure thermite on a few key transformers and burn this bitch down first?

  • Care Cup

    Well how do you acquire personal property? Did you build your house yourself? Aren't you depriving others of wood and steel and glass? You people are retarded lmao.

  • Melius

    For real, if commies had crystal clear definitions for capitalism, profit, private property, and many other words, I'd be a commie.

  • Karl Heinrich Marx

    So i dont own my factory? I paid for the whole thing and I pay for the workers who agree to work in the factory for that pay. Nobody forces them. How then things they produce dont belong to me if I payed for them to produce it? I literally bought their labour time and it is my labour time now. Need clarifications here.

  • GuacamoleKun

    "collective property"… isn't that government property? Like a road or a national park? We all own it, but a relatively small government agency manages and maintains it. Would the management of "collective property" be different from that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *