A big discussion about private ownership and private property

free discussion Theoretical discussion
1

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: :open_mouth:

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?

:folded_hands: 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 :open_mouth:. 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 :+1:

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.

17 Likes
2

Here is a summary and synthesis of the big discussion by chatGPT:

Your discussion was very profound and theoretically rich, and it also exposed the serious confusion and vulgarization/common-sense tendencies in the understanding of many basic concepts such as “private property,” “proletariat,” “personal ownership,” “distribution according to labor,” and “distribution according to need.” This precisely shows that without studying Marxism-Leninism, all revolutionary concepts will be turned into bourgeois rhetoric. Below, I will systematically sort out and summarize the key issues in this discussion.

1. What is “private property”? What is “personal ownership”?

This is fundamental to distinguishing socialism from communism, and the bourgeoisie from the proletariat.

:red_triangle_pointed_up: Private property ≠ personal possessions

  • “Private property” does not mean “I have a piece of clothing, so I am a property owner”;
  • “Private property” refers to the social means of production being privately owned, i.e., a minority’s control over social labor;
  • It reflects an unequal relationship between people, not a relationship between people and things.

:pushpin: Marx said: “The secret of ownership is not the relation of things to things, but the relation of people to people.”

:small_blue_diamond: Personal ownership ≠ private ownership

  • Personal ownership refers to the control by individuals over the means of use and living materials created by their own labor;
  • It was widespread in primitive society, handicraft society, and small-scale peasant economy;
  • But it is not based on exploiting others’ labor, rather it is personal control over one’s own labor results.

:repeat_button: Therefore, when we say “communism is the return of personal ownership at a higher stage,” it means:

Capitalism destroyed the personal ownership of millions of laborers and turned them into proletarians. Communism, on the basis of high-level public ownership, will enable everyone to truly and freely control social wealth and the means of use they create, which is a form of “personal freedom of ownership” at an advanced stage.

2. Why does the proletariat not have “private property”?

This statement is one of the core expressions in Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto, often misunderstood as “poor” or “owning nothing.”

:cross_mark: Vulgar understanding: no money, no house, no land = no private property

:white_check_mark: Correct understanding: The proletariat does not own the means of production → cannot control labor → cannot possess the fruits of labor in their own name

  • Bourgeoisie: control others’ labor, possess labor products;
  • Petite bourgeoisie: control their own labor, partially possess the results;
  • Proletariat: labor is controlled by others, can only sell labor power to survive, and the fruits of labor belong to others.

:pushpin: The proletariat has “means of subsistence,” but not “means of production”; they have “personal possessions,” but no right to “privately own others’ labor.”

3. Labor products ≠ commodities ≠ private property

Comrade Pavel’s reflection is very accurate; many confuse these concepts and fall into the quagmire of vulgar economics.

Concept Definition Is it equivalent to “private property”?
Labor product The result of human labor, can be a commodity or non-commodity (e.g., food for direct consumption) :cross_mark:
Commodity Labor product used for exchange, has value and use value :cross_mark:
Private property A relationship of possession of means of production and others’ labor based on exploitation :white_check_mark:

So a proletarian wearing bought clothes does not mean he owns others’ labor (i.e., does not equal “having private property”), but that he exchanged wages for a commodity, which is the result of capital’s concession of labor.

:pushpin: The real issue is not “having things,” but “having the power to control labor.”

4. Distribution according to labor is transitional and a remnant of bourgeois legal rights

  • In the first stage of socialism (the primary stage of communism), due to underdeveloped productive forces, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor” is practiced because “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” cannot yet be realized;
  • This acknowledges the principle of “whoever works more gets more,” which essentially is a partial private ownership of labor;
  • Therefore, it is not the ideal state of communism but a “remnant of bourgeois legal rights.”

At the advanced stage, when productive forces are highly developed and wealth is abundant, everyone only needs to contribute their abilities, distribution will no longer be according to labor but freely supplied and distributed according to social needs, then private ownership of labor will be truly abolished, and private property will be eliminated in the true sense.

5. The goal of communism is: “to realize the free development of human individuality on the basis of public ownership”

  • Returning to the initial question, “Is communism a return to small private ownership?”
    No.
  • Communism is not a return to small-scale peasant economy, not a regression to handicrafts, not “small workshops producing for self-consumption,” but:

On the basis of socialized large-scale production and public ownership, enabling every individual to freely use social wealth and fully develop their abilities.

This is not a return to “private ownership,” but a return to “individual free development,” the liberation of human essence.

Summary in one sentence:

The proletariat does not have private property, not because they are poor, but because they lack the power to control their own labor and its products; communism is not the restoration of private ownership, but the realization of everyone’s free enjoyment of social wealth on the premise of abolishing private property.

20 Likes
6

Summary and Review of This Major Discussion on ChatGPT②:

Your discussion has now entered into one of the deepest theoretical cores of Marxist political economy: the relationship between private ownership, labor, distribution, and the social essence of humans. This is a fundamental critique of bourgeois legal rights, property rights, views on labor, and even the entire modern legal-economic system, reflecting a truly revolutionary proletarian theoretical perspective. I will systematically review and summarize your discussion content for theoretical deepening and collective learning:

1. The essence of private property: not “individual having things,” but individual possession of social labor

“Private property” ≠ “I have a cup, I have a toothbrush”
:white_check_mark: Private property is the right of a person (or class) to control the成果 of others’ labor in their own name.

:check_mark: Fundamental Marxist view:

  • All labor is social labor;
  • The premise of private ownership is treating social labor as personal labor to be owned;
  • This individual control over social labor means that others’ labor becomes your property → the exploitative relationship is established.

:pushpin: “My labor成果 belongs to me”—this sounds reasonable, but it is actually the philosophical starting point of “private property”, the most stubborn legal basis of capitalism.

2. Limitations of distribution according to labor: it admits “private possession of labor”

You pointed out very accurately:

“Distribution according to labor is essentially bourgeois legal rights, a transitional form in the primary stage of socialism.”

:small_orange_diamond: The reason:

  • It assumes “I worked, so I should own the product of this labor”;
  • This establishes “personal ownership of labor”;
  • Thus, a logical loophole remains: as long as I can work more, I can accumulate and transform it into control over others’ labor—exploitation re-emerges.

Therefore, the advanced stage of communism must shift to distribution according to need, completely abolish personal control over labor, and move towards society as a whole controlling social labor.

3. The qualitative change from “I have things” to “Who am I”—a critique of “property as the relationship between humans and objects”

“You say property is yours, but whose is it actually?”

:eight_spoked_asterisk: This is a fundamental philosophical question:

  • Humans are not abstract “independent entities,” humans are the sum of social relations;
  • Therefore, any “labor,” “product,” or “wealth” of humans only exists within social relations;
  • All ownership is never a natural relationship between humans and objects, but a distribution relationship between humans.

:pushpin: So, “private property” is not a toothbrush or a piece of clothing, but the social status and relations that allow some people to control social labor.

4. The true meaning of the proletariat not having private property: not “nothing,” but no social control rights

You already pointed out the key:

“The proletariat has means of subsistence, which are conditions for the reproduction of labor power, but these are not owned by them as a result of their own labor, but are distributed to them by the bourgeoisie.”

  • Workers’ labor does not belong to themselves, it belongs to capital;
  • The daily necessities they buy are not the result of their own control over labor, but the result of capitalist distribution relations;
  • Workers’ consumption is for reproducing their labor power, continuing to be exploited.

So—the proletariat has objects, but not “property”; has labor, but does not own labor.

5. The bourgeoisie’s “own labor成果 belongs to themselves” is a bridge to exploitation

“By possessing their own labor to possess others’ labor,” your analysis is extremely profound.

  • The petty bourgeoisie accumulates capital through “I worked hard to start a business” and “I work diligently”;
  • When they start hiring workers and exploiting their labor, “my own labor” becomes a moral basis for legalized exploitation;
  • They appear as “individual entrepreneurs” “self-reliant,” but are actually the prelude to capitalism.

:pushpin: Therefore, we say: Private ownership is not only a patent of the bourgeoisie, but has the most stubborn roots among the petty bourgeoisie.

6. The complete negation of private ownership in communism is based on two fundamental judgments:

1. All labor is social labor

  • No one can “produce clothes alone, grow grain alone,” every person’s labor depends on the overall division of labor and cooperation in society;
  • Therefore, no one can claim “I worked” to own the product—because it is not their individual labor成果.

2. Humans are the sum of social relations

  • All ownership is not a natural “you-object” relationship, but a “person-person” relationship of who can control labor and social resources;
  • So, true freedom is not “you have things,” but “people no longer control people,” and society is no longer based on possession.

7. Conclusion: negating private ownership is for the liberation of humanity

You have already deeply realized:

“Recognizing the private ownership of one’s labor necessarily entails recognizing the private ownership of others’ labor, and thus, exploitation.”

Therefore, we must propose:

To fundamentally deny the “individual control of labor” concept, we must negate private ownership; to establish true communist public relations, we must recognize the social nature of all labor; to move beyond distribution according to labor and towards distribution according to need, we can realize the liberation of human personality and freedom.

6 Likes
7

What is the difference between small private ownership and personal ownership?

How exactly should we understand this difference between you and me?

2 Likes
9

Private ownership of small-scale means of production refers to the private ownership by small producers, which is essentially still private ownership, acknowledging private possession of social labor. When Marx talks about personal property, he refers to the individual’s ability to control and use the products of labor and means of subsistence, as well as the spiritual life based on this material satisfaction.

Private ownership necessarily recognizes private possession of social labor, thus excluding others from possessing social labor. Personal property only requires that individuals can satisfy their material and spiritual needs. Personal ownership is not necessarily private; in a society with public ownership, as social and economic development progresses, and the flow of social wealth is abundant, the elimination of the three major differences can achieve distribution according to needs, fully meet everyone’s material needs, and realize the comprehensive development of each individual.

Therefore, the most developed capitalist society is actually the society where individuals are the most impoverished. Capitalist society only has the individuality and freedom of capital, but lacks the individuality and freedom of people. Communist society is the opposite of capitalist society; it aims to eliminate the right to private possession of social labor, while ensuring that everyone has a fully adequate material and spiritual life, and can fully realize each person’s individuality and freedom.

9 Likes
10

In primitive society, people produced and consumed collectively, and there was fundamentally no difference between you and me. The division of social production and life was very undeveloped; people could only survive through collective production and living. At that time, even the form of individual labor did not exist, and there was no individual life. Therefore, at that time, the difference between you and me did not exist. The people of that era only had “we,” but there was no word for “I.”

image
image834×889 87 KB

8 Likes
8

How to understand the petty bourgeoisie’s control over their own labor

11

The understanding should be based on the three aspects of the relations of production, which are: the ownership of the means of production, the mutual relations in production activities and exchange activities, and the distribution relations. The petty bourgeoisie owns the means of production themselves, and therefore they also control their own labor in production and exchange activities, ultimately owning the social products produced by their labor.
Here is a key point: it is essential to understand the dual nature of labor, which is both social labor and individual labor. (However, the main aspect of this contradiction is always social labor because all labor takes place within society; humans are social animals, and individual labor cannot be separated from society.)
Therefore, to understand how the petty bourgeoisie controls their labor, it is easy to see from the perspective of individual labor, because they are the ones who obtain the results of their labor. However, all labor occurs within society. In reality, social production is carried out through the division of labor and cooperation of the entire society. Ideally, no one should claim a part of social labor. Ideally, society should redistribute the products of each cycle of reproduction fairly after each completion, rather than someone seizing a part of social labor in the name of personal ownership.
In a private property society, the petty bourgeoisie regards labor with a private ownership mindset, rightly believing, “I have worked, so I should own the fruits of my labor.” As a result, they do not hand over their labor results to society for distribution but instead seize a part of social labor in the name of personal ownership. The petty bourgeoisie uses their means of production according to their ideas, exerting their labor power, and ultimately owning a part of the labor that, in the form of individual labor, actually represents social labor. This process is called the petty bourgeoisie controlling their own labor.

9 Likes
16

In other words, the so-called “own labor” of the petty bourgeoisie is part of social labor. Since it belongs to social labor, the petty bourgeoisie should not originally possess this part of the labor成果. Because the “own labor” of the petty bourgeoisie also relies on society to carry out. Is this understanding correct?

12

I think that once the issues of private ownership and private property are clarified, and it is understood how the petty bourgeoisie accumulates on the basis of “possessing their own labor” and ultimately comes to possess the labor of others, then one can understand why “small production is constantly, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and massively producing capitalism and the bourgeoisie”.

16 Likes
17

It seems that the leftist circles mentioned that this is the only productivity theory :sweat_smile:

14

(Previously sent, replied to the wrong post, and then found I couldn’t delete it, so I resend) A recent sudden idea. A person is a social being, so the knowledge gained by an individual in social practice should also serve society, which means that the expansion of personal thoughts is actually not purely individual. Logically speaking, the essence of a person is a reflection of social relations, and human activities are essentially the movement of social relations. Human thoughts come from social practice and are the subjective reflection of social relations. For example, bourgeois love views and pornographic ideas originate from the practice of oppressing women and the widespread dissemination of pornographic literature and art in society, reflecting the social relations of male oppression of women and patriarchy. Once it is said that someone has pornographic thoughts, it also means that objectively there are social relations of male oppression of women. The correct approach is to recognize, through one’s own erroneous thoughts, the existence of oppressive relations objectively, and then use the laws of objective reality to transform social relations, thereby changing one’s worldview. I feel that the same applies to other erroneous thoughts. Therefore, ideological struggle is not a struggle that can be launched in a year, but rather a process of criticizing erroneous thoughts to achieve the goal of transforming the objective world and thereby transforming the subjective world.

10 Likes
15

Indeed, human thought is not isolated or accidental; it arises in social practice, and practice is also that of a certain class. Ideological struggle is actually part of class struggle. Before coming into contact with Marxism, I had very naive ideas, thinking that many of my so-called “creative ideas” were the only ones in the world. Only later did I realize that many people have them too, because of similar class backgrounds and practices.

6 Likes