Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2026 3:16 am
I've heard it argued that the problem with "socialism" is that it seeks to eliminate private property. Most versions of socialism I've read about do not seek to eliminate ALL property, however.
If eliminating all property is the definition of "socialism" then it seems that Marx wouldn't qualify as a "socialist" because he distinguished between "private property" and "personal possessions". Marx thought individuals could own "personal possessions" such as tools and things, but not "private property" such as factories. Other socialists I've read agree that ownership of property to some degree is fine. Therefore, it seems mistaken to think of all walks of "socialism" as advocating absolute abolishment of property. What they advocate for is the abolition of certain kinds of property.
The kinds of property I have seen most often described as being abolished by "socialism" are large societal institutions such as factories, banks, plantations, etc, or things that large portions of society depend upon. Why, because individual ownership of things that large portions of society depend on gives an individual (or a few individual
s) inordinate power and control over others.
Some "socialists" believe that it's fine for individuals to own small businesses. I think MOST socialists, at least those I've read, believe that it's OK for individuals to own routinely needed things such as personal transportation, a home, furnishings, food, clothing, tools, things to entertain themselves, etc.
I believe it is a misunderstanding of "socialism" to define it as the abolition of all property and that's what I think some people accuse Marx of being in favor of and by extension, use as a definition of what "socialism" is. If we put aside that misunderstanding, then are all "flavors of "socialism" really a terrible thing? Doesn't it seem reasonable that an individual should be able to own some possessions but not socially critical things that would give them inordinate power over all?
Does anyone believe that there should be no limits to what an individual may own?
The reason for my current formulation of the poll is to block the potential criticism that if one cannot safely draw a line exactly where to ban individual ownership of things, then one cannot have any ban whatsoever on individual ownership of things. That would be a "slippery slope" fallacy to believe that no limit can be set on property without banning all property or else without allowing any and all things to be owned by individuals.
It is my belief that we can all agree that individuals should be able to own some things but not all things. The only dispute we may have is where to draw the line at what individuals cannot own.
In order to test my theory that we can all agree on that one criterion; I've set up a poll for the question with four possible answers that I think pretty much cover every broad possibility concerning what individuals can own. It is set so that you can change your vote if you later change your mind about the poll questions.
Please vote.
I hope this will clear up misunderstandings about "socialism" by some.
NOTE: Of course, comments are welcome also. Commenting or asking questions may help in the voting process.