Socialism and Property: Redefining 'Ownership' and 'Property'

Discussing socialism through the lens of capitalist terminology, such as 'own' and 'property,' can be challenging. It's akin to trying to explain science using biblical language. The vocabulary we use in capitalism is not neutral; it is rooted in an ideology that views working people merely as a resource to be exploited. Unlike socialism, where the focus is on mutual obligations rather than individual rights, capitalism centers on the idea of owning everything and maintaining a ruling class.

Property and Violence: A Capitalist Construct

Commonly, when we speak of 'owning' something, it means using force or the threat of force to exclude others from its use for an extended period. This term is deeply tied to capitalist institutions and systems, including laws, police, and courts, that institutionalize violence in support of ownership rights.

This leads to the creation of a discourse around 'individual rights,' which is fundamentally about the owner class maintaining their ownership of everything and their status as rulers. Socialists, on the other hand, emphasize mutual obligations and collective control over assets.

Ownership and Assets: A Socialist Critique

For the owning class, 'property' means exclusive use of a good as a means to derive income, making it an 'asset.' These assets, such as luxury goods or investments, help maintain the affluent lifestyle of the owner class. However, socialists argue that the focus should be on assets and the systems that protect them, rather than the tools of one's trade or personal belongings.

The working class, in contrast, typically cannot afford to own assets due to prohibitively high start-up costs and the tendency to inherit them. For instance, owning a house often meant taking on a mortgage - a long-term loan with substantial interest. However, these benefits are increasingly being removed to fund more billionaires, with one famous example being an autistic American billionaire who spent 250 million dollars to help get Trump elected.

The Socialist Vision of Property

In socialist society, certain assets and resources are considered differently. Land, for example, is not something that can be legitimately 'owned' by an individual. Land would be used collectively for the benefit of all, and its use would be negotiated and divided based on need and capacity. Exclusive access to land would only be granted with the consent of all, ensuring that those who require it, such as farmers, can use it.

Similarly, resources extracted from the land, such as oil, minerals, and diamonds, cannot be owned solely based on willingness to use violence or the inherent violence of the system to exclude others. These resources belong to society, and their exclusive ownership is detrimental to the community. In the United States, for example, despite being the wealthiest country, millions of people live in poverty, lack health insurance, and are incarcerated, highlighting the disparity in wealth and access to basic needs.

A Capitalist Society vs. A Socialist Future

Capitalism devalues people unless they work to make the owner class richer, leading to a race to the bottom where the minimum wage often dictates working conditions. In a capitalist society, the end goal is for one person to own everything while others are left in poverty. This vision of society starkly contrasts with socialism, where the owner class makes no significant contribution to society despite their potential.

Therefore, in a socialist future, the owner class should not receive any benefits from society, and the collective wealth of society should be shared equitably. Exclusive access to vast wealth should not exist, especially when neighbors are struggling with basic needs like food and healthcare.