AskProfWolff: Markets and Private Property in a Socialist Society

A patron asks: "Do markets exist in a socialist society? The market system under capitalism has failed to meet the needs of its citizens, especially in certain areas where the incentives of a market system do not yield appropriate social outcomes - like health insurance. But in many situations, free and fair markets are an efficient and effective way of distributing resources. Does private property exist in a socialist society?"

Follow Wolff ONLINE:

[carnifexx]

I would distinguish between private property and personal property.

[ansoc]

In a true socialist economy, there is not private property as we know it; but there is personal property (a basic rule of thumb is things you own that are portable). Since housing and the land it sits on are considered an essential human need, they are held in the public trust, though obviously people get to use them, they cannot sell them or make profit off them. Professor Wolff is referring to countries that have claimed to have socialist economies, though by having authoritarian governments, what winds up happening is actually a form of state run capitalism (the state owns the means of production and use wage labor to produce profits that the state keeps and often abuses).

[fcotrpc]

I ALWAYS LEARN SOMETHING NEW FROM THE WOLFF...

[josdesouza]

Thank you, Professor. Some things that seem obvious to sensible and rational people do have to be explained in detail because of the barrage of misinformation other people we live with have been exposed to for so long.

[manlymanmann]

why don't you use the "personal" vs "private" terminology?

[dinnerwithfranklin]

Very interesting Professor, thank you

[ledssenrese]

No. In socialism MUSTN'T be market relationships nor private property (of means of production), but socialized property which is democratically used by the workers for the general benefit, with a well planned economy for the necessities not for profit.

[progyandas]

To be fair, in Stalin’s USSR and even after that, private property was not owned by the bottom sections of the society who were large in number . Same in Cuba, most of the elites owned private property.

[mm-rjvo]

What are your opinions on the semi socialist and semi anarchist Democratic Confederalism and Communalism? Do you think that a decentralized state, built exclusively from radically democratic communities which would be much more systemically accountable to it's populace would work better than a centralized state? It's my estimation that all centralized state socialist systems have failed to "dissolve the state" as is the goal of communism.

I'm a socialist myself, but fall somewhere in the camp of somewhat more anarchist than not, and seeing the past histories of anarchist and communist in-fighting makes me worry for the future of leftist unity.

Feel free to paraphrase my question or comments, but do please site some articles or studies on the matter of the outcomes of statist governmental architecture as distinct from more anarchist, or at least communal confederalist governmental architecture.

[laurencegoldman]

How can you possibly know in advance what property relations will actually look like in any situation that has not yet come to be? You can only speculate on what you’d like to see and that may or may not come to pass. A transition to socialism involves actual people, with interests they will fight for. How far are you willing to go?

[thegoodspringguy]

Richard, houses, cars, toothbrush etc. perhaps call those personal possessions to differentiate them from private property being the means of production. This is to avoid confusion for entry level leftists. Thanks

[wiltonwarlock]

Dear Professor Wolff, Great GREAT commentaries. Please keep them coming. But one small suggestion: do a little "social distancing" from the camera. It will help. Thanks for all you do!

[HeathWatts]

Didn't Marx distinguish between personal and private property in the Communist Manifesto? The example of homes, cars, toothbrushes, etc., are personal property, whereas a factory is private property. Private property allows people to accrue wealth and to oppress people and should be abolished. Eliminating private property would limit the amount of personal property one could accrue (e.g., no more yachts and mansions). Some people could earn a bit more than others, but wealth inequality would not be nearly as terrible as it is today.

[pretty.smart.]

Why can’t we have economic diversity and allow them to compete? If people are allowed to have traditional capitalist workplaces but are forced to compete with co-operatives the “invisible hand” would decide which system truly works realistically for the people. I’d love to hear what threat some capitalist businesses would have if the freedom of choice was present.

[pebblepod]

My prefered solution (or something like it):
(1) For private owership of housing: Singapore's Solution is best, but Japan's works well too.
Govt pays for appartment construction, sells directly to mainly working** owner-occupiers at cost price.
Some property could be for the rich, but not to the extent they force everyone else to play their "only game in town".

In western world we have Federal Govts often giving tax incentives to reward multiple home ownership & to make property more expensive.
MOST OF ALL Local Govts use zoning laws to prevent enough housing being built.

(2) Business Diversity:
Govt ownership of natural monopolies (theft not needed to aquire though) or Govt Owned & competing bussiness where good public interest case (e.g. big pharma).
Big, medium & small business still exist.
Co-ops subsidized at start up stage, like other businesses often are (e.g. agriculture).

(3) Transport Diversity:
Range of practical & safe options, instead of car-Centric.

**to prevent urban blight.

[elena]

Thank you professor Wolfe, you explain things clearly, so even I can understand

[morningstar]

You're allowed to exist and serve the state but not to be comfortable or God forbid, wealthy. Got it.

[wlf]

Our financial system needs to be nationalized.

[owelofminerva]

I'm not sure why the professor answered this way, especially since he doesn't take real/really existing/state socialism to be socialism. What went on in the socialist bloc under communist parties and what still goes on under the remaining regimes today is wholly irrelevant to what would be the case in a socialist society. If you take socialism to be an alternative to capitalism and not merely a version of capitalism different from what historically obtained in the west then real/really existing/state socialism doesn't tell use anything about socialism because all of those regimes were and are fully integrated into the capitalist world-system; meaning they were embedded in both the capitalist world-economy and that world-economy's geopolitical hierarchy of states. If you take socialism to be the social control of production then it would make sense to think of property the way Marx thought about it.

For Marx property in the abstract is different than class property. Property in the abstract is simply what human beings appropriate from the natural world. Everything that we produce and accumulate is property in this sense. Class property is the control of production by a certain section of the population to the exclusion of the rest of the population. Social control of production implies the abolition of class property, but it does not imply the abolition of property in the abstract. As for the market, socialists have obviously had different ideas about this issue historically, but it's been argued effectively in my opinion that social control of production implies the abolition of the market. The argument is as fallows:

The market requires producing things to buy and sell (exchange) which itself requires 2 things incompatible with social control of production. It requires firstly that producers are engaged in production separately rather than in cooperation since buying and selling is the activity of autonomous producers in a sphere of commodity circulation (market) and secondly requires the fetishization of commodities. This phrase was coined by Marx to describe how the production of commodities gives things power over people by making human activity conditional on buying and selling; I don't produce and consume things as I need, but only in so far as I can participate in buying and selling. This clashes with social control of production because if all human beings cooperatively control the production process then they must be able to produce and consume as they need.

[pretty.smart.]

Also, what are the possibilities for entrepreneurs who do not want to work in coop businesses but would rather follow their own pursuits and use their homes as workspaces? Do we make amends for private property being used as a workspace? Are they forbidden to do this?