Pavel: FenghuoFlame: Yesterday I listened to the life meeting and reading session but didn’t quite understand some parts. After everyone explained, I still don’t fully understand. Now I want to ask. First, why is the law of the unity of opposites the most fundamental universal law of world development? Also: why is communism said to be a return to small private ownership?
Pavel: Everyone says communism is a return to small private ownership, but I find it strange. Why is this term connected to private ownership?
You: Communism is not a return to small private ownership, but a return of personal ownership at a higher stage.
Pavel: I seem to have some impression.
Pavel: ![]()
You: Because in primitive society, people lived as a whole without large-scale social division of labor or differentiation, and there was no distinction between you and me. It was a backward form of small public ownership. In class society, private ownership emerged, creating distinctions between you and me. Personal ownership developed within private ownership society. However, capitalist society eliminated small production through large-scale production, depriving all small producers of their property. In capitalist society, only the individuality and freedom of capital exist, not those of people.
You: In communist society, material production is highly developed, social wealth flows abundantly, the three major distinctions are eliminated, and the comprehensive development of each person’s talents is realized, allowing full expression of each individual’s personality.
You: Therefore, communism is the return of personal ownership at a higher stage, but this personal ownership is actually a manifestation of high-level public ownership.
Pavel: I was previously pondering whether there would be distinctions between you and me in communist society.
Pavel: One reason why the proletariat is said to have strong revolutionary nature is that the proletariat has no private property. I always thought private property meant “things one owns oneself,” and thought this meant the proletariat was very poor. Then I pondered that the proletariat must have some means of living, like clothes to wear, and wondered if this counts as living materials, not private property.
You: They don’t even have living materials, right?
Pavel: > <
FenghuoFlame
They don’t even have living materials, right?
Of course they must have living materials. What’s the difference between living materials and private property?
You: Property is labor; private property is private possession of labor.
You: Under public ownership, naturally there is no private possession of labor.
You: Living materials are also products of labor and wealth, but under public ownership they are distributed according to need.
Pavel: > <
FenghuoFlame
Property is labor; private property is private possession of labor.
Then in capitalist society, what is the private property of some petty bourgeoisie who do not engage in wage labor exploitation?
You: It is also private possession of labor.
You: In communist society, living materials are collective.
You: Communist society does not recognize private possession of property.
Pavel: > <
FenghuoFlame
It is also private possession of labor.
Then why is the proletariat not private possession of labor? This question seems quite reactionary.
You: Distribution according to need means not recognizing people’s right to possess labor, even their own labor; distribution according to labor is bourgeois legal right because it recognizes individuals’ private possession of labor.
You: The proletariat has no property; only their own labor is possessed by others. Where is the private possession of labor?
You: The proletariat creates all wealth but can barely survive.
You: Understanding distribution relations must start from understanding production relations.
You: The petty bourgeoisie privately own means of production; they are also bourgeoisie. Therefore, in distribution, they can control labor and possess labor products, and they will continuously produce capitalism and bourgeoisie.
Pavel: > <
FenghuoFlame
Distribution according to need means not recognizing people’s right to possess labor, even their own labor; distribution according to labor is bourgeois legal right because it recognizes individuals’ private possession of labor.
I always thought private property means a person owns something. I thought the proletariat has living materials, like at least clothes to wear, then I started pondering that buying clothes means clothes are made by others through labor, so is this “private possession of labor”?
You: Ownership is a relationship between people, not between people and things.
You: Private ownership means recognizing that some people possess property while others do not.
Pavel: > <
FenghuoFlame
Private ownership means recognizing that some people possess property while others do not.
Indeed.
Pavel: > <
FenghuoFlame
It is also private possession of labor.
Who does the petty bourgeoisie who do not exploit wage labor privately possess labor from?
Pavel: > <
FenghuoFlame
The petty bourgeoisie privately own means of production; they are also bourgeoisie. Therefore, in distribution, they can control labor and possess labor products, and they will continuously produce capitalism and bourgeoisie.
Controlling labor and possessing labor products—what does that mean? I think I understand a bit now. I realize the proletariat cannot possess their own labor products; the bourgeoisie possess them, and the proletariat cannot control others working for them.
You: The first aspect of production relations determines the second and third aspects.
Pavel: I have a vulgar understanding of the term “labor product.”
Pavel: When I was pondering whether the proletariat owning clothes means possessing labor, I actually confused the concept of labor product with commodity.
You: The fundamental question is who controls labor.
You: In capitalist society, the bourgeoisie control labor.
You: The bourgeoisie control others’ labor; the petty bourgeoisie control their own and perhaps others’ labor; the proletariat are controlled.
Pavel: Indeed.
Pavel: I just asked everyone, and they said the proletariat having no private property is literal, meaning very poor.
Pavel: It seems many people do not understand this sentence’s meaning.
You: Of course, those who do not understand Marxism-Leninism are like this.
You: Our party has long not studied or understood Marxism-Leninism, and some swindlers have deceived people for a long time.
luanma: Actually, it boils down to one point: whether labor and possession of labor necessarily relate.
luanma: Private ownership means labor and possession of labor are linked; whoever labors can possess their labor, which leads to its opposite—possessing others’ labor through possessing one’s own labor, i.e., exploitation.
luanma: But in communist society, distribution according to need is unrelated to how much a person labors; all labor results are handed over to the collective and owned by society as a whole, so distribution depends only on objective needs, not labor amount.
Confused: I don’t quite understand “possessing others’ labor through possessing one’s own labor.” Capitalists don’t labor either.
Pavel: Does “possessing others’ labor through possessing one’s own labor” describe the process of petty bourgeoisie without wage labor exploitation becoming wealthy small owners or capitalists who do exploit wage labor?
luanma: Historically, exploiting classes emerged from small production.
He Baoti (Bu): [In capitalist society, the bourgeoisie control labor] Indeed, it seems the proletariat obtains products by spending wages on living materials, but essentially, this is the result of the bourgeoisie controlling workers’ labor. Because if the proletariat did not use wages to buy living materials to reproduce labor power, capitalist exploitation could not be maintained. So the production relations of capital ownership determine the relations and distribution.
luanma: Slave owners emerged from polarization within small production; landlords from polarization among peasants; bourgeoisie from polarization among petty bourgeoisie.
luanma: At the end of primitive society, individual families and individual private ownership appeared, then polarization occurred: a small part rose to exploiters due to labor advantages, most became exploited.
He Baoti (Bu): Equivalent exchange is already the germ of exploitation. Equivalent exchange trades commodities according to socially necessary labor time, but differences in labor ability inevitably lead strong laborers to exchange less labor for more labor from weaker laborers.
Haiyan: I understand that private property and possession of private property essentially mean possession of labor, a relationship between people, not between people and things. So saying the proletariat has no private property does not mean they lack basic living items like toothbrushes or cups, but that they cannot possess others’ labor like the bourgeoisie nor even their own labor like the petty bourgeoisie, right?
You: Humans are the sum of social relations; all labor is social labor. Therefore, private ownership recognizes individuals’ right to possess social labor, and private property is individuals possessing social labor. Property relations are relations between people, not between people and things.
luanma: Distribution according to labor means people receive rewards proportional to labor; distribution according to need means distribution depends on objective needs regardless of labor amount.
You: It must be understood that all labor is social labor.
You: There should be no individual possession of social labor.
You: Even if this social labor is simultaneously one’s personal labor.
Haiyan: Then how to view the proletariat’s daily personal items and distinguish them from private property? I think these are just means for reproducing proletariat labor power.
You: But individuals live within society.
You: If you say the property is yours, then whose are you?
You: This explains the classic question.
luanma: In capitalist society, proletariat daily necessities are bought with wages, but wages are not determined by their labor but by the value of their labor power, i.e., objectively by needs for living materials, and fluctuate with class struggle.
Confused: Didn’t expect such deep knowledge
. I used to just go by my vulgar understanding when reading.
You: In different socio-economic formations, each person’s personal consumption goods come from different means, determined by different production relations and thus different distribution relations. The proletariat’s living materials are their own created social labor distributed to them under capitalist distribution relations.
You: The proletariat’s position in capitalist production relations means they cannot possess social labor in their own name because their labor is possessed by society (bourgeoisie). If a person can possess social labor, they are no longer proletariat.
luanma: “More labor, more gain” seems reasonable but is actually unreasonable; more labor does not necessarily mean more gain, less labor not necessarily less gain. It’s either a capitalist trick to make workers accept piecework wages or a petty bourgeois defense for speculation.
Pavel: Ah, Marxist knowledge is so profound ![]()
You: So here we find another basis to completely negate private ownership and private concepts.
You: All labor is social labor; no one has the right to possess it, even if it is simultaneously their personal labor.
You: Because human nature is the sum of social relations; humans are social animals relying on society to survive.
luanma: It is indeed a contradictory matter: recognizing private rights to one’s labor means recognizing private rights to others’ labor, thus justifying exploitation and oppression, allowing some to control others’ labor through their own.
You: Public ownership aligns with the direction of social historical development and human nature.
Chifengred: I originally saw this purely as a quantitative issue, thinking workers only get part of their labor, then always have living materials, but seeing some highly ranked workers confused me.
luanma: Labor linked to distribution is a historical social phenomenon with inherent irrationality; there’s no logical necessity to recognize private rights to labor products.
You: All labor is social labor; no one can possess labor results based on part of social labor also being their personal labor. Agricultural and industrial production, farming, weaving, cannot be done by one person alone.
You: If one recognizes a person can possess the part of social labor they are responsible for, inequality inevitably arises due to different roles in division of labor.
Luanyun: Workers’ wages are distributed by capitalists to maintain labor power reproduction, not workers possessing their own labor. This control is not in workers’ hands, so production ownership determines distribution? I am overloaded.
You: According to private ownership logic, the person responsible for raw material collection can possess raw materials, the person for finished product processing can possess finished products; then the latter benefits and the former loses.
luanma: Actually, the capitalist wage distribution system derives from distribution according to labor. Because private ownership recognizes private property, it recognizes personal labor results belong to individuals. Originally, workers’ labor results should belong to themselves under private ownership, but capitalists pay wages to make workers labor for free, so workers accept unpaid labor for capitalists (even if this exchange is just buying labor power, it is unequal). Distribution by capital derives from distribution by labor.
fyy: Indeed, in primitive society, people lived socially and labored collectively. Later, production developed division of labor and commodity exchange, seemingly recognizing personal possession of labor, but labor’s social nature remained; products are not for oneself but must be exchanged to survive.
Haiyan: Wonderful; I had no appetite but kept eating while reading.
He Baoti (Bu): Indeed, the contradiction between private labor and social labor under private ownership is sharp, especially under capitalism, where socialized production and private ownership conflict is the fundamental contradiction, causing cyclical economic crises. Only public ownership can resolve this.
luanma: If capitalists did not pay wages to buy workers’ labor power, workers would not labor for capitalists but keep labor results for themselves, becoming small producers, not workers.
You: Therefore, we should oppose private concepts, the mentality of claiming credit, and investment/shareholding mindsets.
You: All money, technology, knowledge, and labor belong to the collective, ultimately to society. Without society or collective, none of these exist or function.
