#abolition of private property

[rotenotes]

Reading "Anarchist communism" @wikipedia (20131015)

Reading Anarchist communism ((accessdate=20131015)) {{Anarcho-communism sidebar|expanded=all}} Part of a series on Anarcho-communism Concepts Anarchy Anti-authoritarianism Anti-capitalism Anti-statism Proletarian internationalism Class consciousness Class struggle Classless society Common ownership Commons Commune Consensus democracy Co-operative economics Direct democracy Egalitarian…

[opstandelse]

Reading "Anarchist communism" @wikipedia (20131015)

Reading Anarchist communism ((accessdate=20131015)) {{Anarcho-communism sidebar|expanded=all}} Part of a series on Anarcho-communism Concepts Anarchy Anti-authoritarianism Anti-capitalism Anti-statism Proletarian internationalism Class consciousness Class struggle Classless society Common ownership Commons Commune Consensus democracy Co-operative economics Direct democracy Egalitarian…

[tmarshconnors]

The Napoleonic Code

The Napoleonic Code, also known as the Civil Code of 1804, is one of Napoleon Bonaparte's most significant and enduring legacies. It is a comprehensive system of laws that aimed to reform and standardize the legal framework of France. Before the Napoleonic Code, France's legal system was a patchwork of regional laws, feudal customs, and royal edicts, which created inconsistency and confusion. The code had a profound impact on not only France but also many other countries, serving as a model for modern legal systems around the world.

Key Features of the Napoleonic Code:

Equality Before the Law:

The Napoleonic Code ensured legal equality for all male citizens, meaning that laws would apply equally to everyone, regardless of their birth, class, or wealth. This abolished the feudal privileges that had been enjoyed by the aristocracy under the old regime.

It established the principle that nobles, clergy, and commoners were all subject to the same laws.

Abolition of Feudalism:

The code abolished feudal obligations and privileges, including serfdom and manorial dues, ensuring that people were free from feudal bonds and that property rights were more clearly defined.

Civil Rights and Liberties:

The code affirmed individual rights, such as the right to own property, the freedom of contract, and the right to be free from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.

It supported the idea of religious freedom, although it retained certain restrictions on freedom of the press and political dissent.

Property Rights:

The code placed a strong emphasis on the protection of private property. Property ownership was seen as a fundamental right, and the code established clear guidelines for acquiring, transferring, and inheriting property.

The inheritance laws introduced by the code were particularly significant: they established that property must be divided equally among all heirs (children) upon the death of a property owner, rather than allowing for primogeniture (where the eldest son inherits everything). This was intended to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few families.

Secular Law:

The Napoleonic Code was secular, separating the legal system from the influence of the Catholic Church. It made civil marriage the only legally recognized form of marriage, and divorce was legalized, although with more restrictions than under earlier revolutionary laws.

Family Law and Patriarchy:

The code placed significant emphasis on the family, which Napoleon saw as the foundation of society. It gave fathers considerable authority over their children and wives.

Women were largely subordinate under the code. A wife was legally required to obey her husband, and her ability to manage property or engage in legal contracts was limited without her husband’s permission. Women also had fewer rights in divorce and child custody matters.

Codification and Clarity:

One of the Napoleonic Code’s most revolutionary aspects was its clarity and simplicity. Napoleon sought to replace the confusing and inconsistent legal systems of pre-revolutionary France with a single, coherent, and easily understandable legal framework.

The code is written in clear, accessible language, making it more understandable for the public, rather than being limited to legal professionals.

Merit-Based Society:

By ensuring equality before the law and abolishing hereditary privileges, the Napoleonic Code supported a merit-based society, where individuals could advance based on talent and achievement, rather than birth or status.

Influence of the Napoleonic Code:

The Napoleonic Code had a significant influence not only in France but also abroad. Napoleon implemented it in the territories he conquered, and its principles spread to parts of Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, and Spain. Over time, many other countries, including those in Latin America and parts of Africa and the Middle East, adopted or adapted aspects of the code into their own legal systems.

Global Legacy:

The Napoleonic Code is widely regarded as one of the most influential legal documents in the world. It served as the basis for civil law systems in many countries, particularly in continental Europe and Latin America.

Its emphasis on equality before the law, property rights, and a secular legal framework has shaped modern legal traditions in many countries. It is still the foundation of civil law in France and has been a model for legal codes around the world, particularly in countries with civil law systems, as opposed to common law systems (like the UK or the US).

The Napoleonic Code was a transformative legal document that codified the principles of the French Revolution—equality before the law, meritocracy, and secular governance—while also promoting a strong, centralized state and patriarchal family structure. Its impact extended far beyond Napoleon's reign, influencing modern legal systems across Europe and beyond, and it remains a foundational element of civil law to this day.

[needabetternamelater]

[philosophybits]

With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.

Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism

[txttletale]

as i write my silly little family abolition post i keep thinking of the segment in wage labour & capital where marx argues that capitalism as a system of production serves to enforce both production and non-production--i.e., when a factory is not profitable, even though it might produce something necessary, even if people might be willing to work there, they are actively prevented by private property--private property enforces the disuse of land, machinery, etc just as much as it regulates its use. and i think considering the family in those terms is really useful--because you can break away from just understanding the family as providing care (and therefore obviously a good thing, how could we abolish the family!) but also conversely as one of foreclosing care--if nobody will care for the child, or the senior, or the sick, or disabled, within the confines of the family, then the boundaries of the family serve to prevent anyone else from providing that care. much like industry is not a 'provider' of work, but a regimenter of it, so is the family best understood as a regimenter of care.

[communistkenobi]

genuinely curious, if you think "it's a girl!" and "it's a boy!" categorisations are inherently oppressive, do you believe a world where gender isn't recognized in any meaningful way before the child has means to define it for themself to be the best alternative?

I’m going to use a different abolitionist example to illustrate what I mean: when people advocate for abolishing the nuclear family, they are not saying “get rid of parental relationships” or “get rid of fathers.” They are identifying a specific social relation that is used as a building block of society and advocating for a world where it doesn’t exist, because its existence is the foundation of certain forms of oppression. The western social model where children are raised in private detached housing by a maximum of two parents (and realistically, mostly by their mother - a huge problem in itself!) who have complete control over their material, emotional, and social needs produces a fucking huge amount of adverse outcomes - abuse, trauma, dysfunction, poor health - the list is nearly infinite. And this family model also inherently reproduces class, race, and gender by virtue of the fact that children inherit those things from their parents and are forced to exist in those contexts. And even in individual cases where it doesn’t produce abuse, even if you have very good parents who are not abusive to you in any way, that social relationship is still oppressive, in the same way that having a cool boss doesn’t mean that wage labour is good. A society where children are not entirely dependent on one or two people for all of their needs, where they are free to form meaningful relationships with adults outside of strict categories of family, where children are not legally and socially treated like the property of their parents, where bloodline is not privileged as the dominant mode of intergenerational transfer of knowledge, culture, skill, wealth, etc, is a much better world!

“Gender abolition” is, I think, a poor term for a similar goal, and one that has a lot of reactionary baggage (baggage that is not coincidental - I think its imprecision as a term is useful for terf politics). Abolition of patriarchy is probably more precise - I am advocating for a world where gender is entirely non-coercive, where gender does not produce any oppressive social relations. You can engage in gender as a culture in the same way you can engage with different forms of art, in a way that is purely voluntary. This configuration does not prohibit the possibility of trans people; we would just exist in an entirely different form than the current western, medicalist, patriarchal, white supremacist context we are forced to navigate.

So yes, I think for gender to be truly emancipatory, it needs to be engaged with as a voluntary form of human culture, as a form of art that we do with ourselves and our bodies, and to do this we need to abolish sex distinctions on medical records, gender markers on state documents, gendered facilities, and many, many other things.

[reality-detective]

This cartoon was made 60 years ago yet we hear today advocates of abolition of private property, and that they will try to take your freedom in exchange for security. 🤔

[austerlitzborodinoleipzig]

Absolute unit at the demonstration today with a very elaborate set up including three portable fountains, a sunflower and a full manifesto for free housing for everyone, abolition of private property and a polyamorous society.

[read-marx-and-lenin]

What do you think of the term "personal property" as distinct from "private property?" I'm not sure how I feel about it because on one hand the people pushing for it often seem to be petty-burgeois opportunists who insist on the continuation of homeowning and such during socialism, but on the other hand some of the people opposing it seem to have read what Marx said about how all property borders will disappear on higher-stage communism and interpreted it as "REAL communists want to confiscate your toothbrush, which is why the USSR wasn't REAL communism."

I mean, if you want to read Marx, the Communist Manifesto is right there.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property? But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism. To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

What does it mean to own a home? Capitalism conflates home ownership with land ownership and with private ownership of the means of production. To the capitalists and their apologists, there is no difference between any of these, all of these should be commodified and treated the same under the law.

Is living in a home and being secure in your right to live in a home enough to own it? The capitalist would say no. Common law traditionally assigns three fundamental rights necessary for private ownership, referred to in the Latin as usus, fructus, and abusus. That is, the right to use it, the right to profit from it, and the right to abuse it.

To the capitalist, if you cannot rent your house out for profit, you do not own it. To the capitalist, if you cannot dismantle the house and sell it for scrap, you do not own it. If these so-called fundamental rights are abridged, then suddenly homeownership becomes impossible in the mind of a capitalist.

When it comes to land or homes, communism does not grant individuals the rights of fructus or abusus. Communism recognizes that these things have an existence beyond the individual, that though an individual may use them for a period, eventually they will be used by someone else. To continue the privatization of homes or land would be to stifle collectivization and maintain a sense of bourgeois individualism that communism should instead seek to eliminate.

To nationalise the land, in order to let it out in small plots to individuals or working men's societies, would, under a middle-class government, only engender a reckless competition among themselves and thus result in a progressive increase of "Rent" which, in its turn, would afford new facilities to the appropriators of feeding upon the producers. [...] I say on the contrary; the social movement will lead to this decision that the land can but be owned by the nation itself. To give up the soil to the hands of associated rural labourers, would be to surrender society to one exclusive class of producers. The nationalisation of land will work a complete change in the relations between labour and capital, and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production, whether industrial or rural. Then class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis upon which they rest. To live on other people's labour will become a thing of the past. There will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself! Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organised in the most adequate manner. National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan.

(Marx, The Nationalization of the Land, 1872)

The distortion of communistic abolition of property into such a complete dissolution of any and all forms of ownership no matter how personal has been around since Marx's own time. As he remarked in The German Ideology, when faced with Stirner's egoistic criticisms of communism:

When the narrow-minded bourgeois says to the communists: by abolishing property, i.e., my existence as a capitalist, as a landed proprietor, as a factory-owner, and your existence as workers, you abolish my individuality and your own; by making it impossible for me to exploit you, the workers, to rake in my profit, interest or rent, you make it impossible for me to exist as an individual. — When, therefore, the bourgeois tells the communists: by abolishing my existence as a bourgeois, you abolish my existence as an individual; when thus he identifies himself as a bourgeois with himself as an individual, one must, at least, recognise his frankness and shamelessness. For the bourgeois it is actually the case, he believes himself to be an individual only insofar as he is a bourgeois. But when the theoreticians of the bourgeoisie come forward and give a general expression to this assertion, when they equate the bourgeois’s property with individuality in theory as well and want to give a logical justification for this equation, then this nonsense begins to become solemn and holy. Above “Stirner” refuted the communist abolition of private property by first transforming private property into “having” and then declaring the verb “to have” an indispensable word, an eternal truth, because even in communist society it could happen that Stirner will “have” a stomach-ache. In exactly the same way here his arguments regarding the impossibility of abolishing private property depend on his transforming private property into the concept of property, on exploiting the etymological connection between the words Eigentum and eigen and declaring the word eigen an eternal truth, because even under the communist system it could happen that a stomach-ache will be eigen to him. All this theoretical nonsense, which seeks refuge in etymology, would be impossible if the actual private property that the communists want to abolish had not been transformed into the abstract notion of “property”. This transformation, on the one hand, saves one the trouble of having to say anything, or even merely to know anything, about actual private property and, on the other hand, makes it easy to discover a contradiction in communism, since after the abolition of (actual) property it is, of course, easy to discover all sorts of things in communism which can be included in the concept “property”. In reality, of course, the situation is just the reverse. In reality I possess private property only insofar as I have something vendible, whereas what is peculiar to me [meine Eigenheit] may not be vendible at all. My frock-coat is private property for me only so long as I can barter, pawn or sell it, so long [as it] is [marketable]. If it loses that feature, if it becomes tattered, it can still have a number of features which make it valuable for me, it may even become a feature of me and turn me into a tatterdemalion. But no economist would think of classing it as my private property, since it does not enable me to command any, even the smallest, amount of other people’s labour. A lawyer, an ideologist of private property, could perhaps still indulge in such twaddle.

And to head off any notion that Marx had suddenly changed his mind at some point later in life, that the events of Paris or some other event might have convinced him that personal property should be abolished at "higher-stage" communism, here is Engels in Anti-Duhring explaining clearly what Marx's thoughts were on the subject:

Marx says: “It is the negation of negation. This re-establishes individual property, but on the basis of the acquisitions of the capitalist era, i.e., on co-operation of free workers and their possession in common of the land and of the means of production produced by labour. The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, arduous, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialised production, into socialised property.” [K. Marx, Das Kapital, p. 793.] That is all. The state of things brought about by the expropriation of the expropriators is therefore characterised as the re-establishment of individual property, but on the basis of the social ownership of the land and of the means of production produced by labour itself. To anyone who understands plain talk this means that social ownership extends to the land and the other means of production, and individual ownership to the products, that is, the articles of consumption. And in order to make the matter comprehensible even to children of six, Marx assumes on page 56 “a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community”, that is, a society organised on a socialist basis; and he continues: “The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary.” And surely that is clear enough even for Herr Dühring, in spite of his having Hegel on his brain. The property which is at once both individual and social, this confusing hybrid, this nonsense which necessarily springs from Hegelian dialectics, this nebulous world, this profound dialectical enigma, which Marx leaves his adepts to solve for themselves — is yet another free creation and imagination on the part of Herr Dühring.

There is no such "disappearance of property borders" in Marx's communism. At no stage of communism does Marx ever prescribe anything of the sort.

Private property, the social property that capitalism has already socialized by requiring the collective labor of the working class in order to maintain and make productive, will be expropriated from the capitalists and nationalized by the proletarian state to become the collective property of the working class.

Personal property, that portion of the produce of society that can be used only by individuals and that has no reason at all to be shared, will remain personal. You will not have to pass your plate around so that everyone can take a bite out of your food. You will not have to wear hand-me-down clothing. And you will not have to share your toothbrush.

[dipperdesperado]

guerrilla gardening is very cool

I’m really stoked to talk about praxis and solarpunk today. Hopefully, you all know what solarpunk is. I imagine fewer of you know what praxis is. Essentially, praxis is a term, used a lot by leftists, to talk about doing stuff. It’s a practice or activity, informed by theoretical and experiential knowledge. In our goal to create an ecological society informed by appropriate technology, we should think not only about the massive upheavals but the things that we can do right now. That’s where guerrilla gardening comes in.

Gardening in general is activism, but guerrilla gardening is like, super solarpunk. The rundown is essentially when you and/or a group of homies take some love-starved land and turn it into a garden (or just plant stuff there) without permission from the owner of said land. That lack of permission is what makes it guerrilla. This can lead to a better community, and supports abolition (of private property), autonomy, and collective resiliency. Ideally, you can get public support behind ya, and be able to work with the municipality to not get in trouble. The classic asking for forgiveness than permission, until you’re the one that can decide.

Where to Start: X Marks the Spot

When you (and your small-but mighty collective/affinity group) decide that you want to set up a guerrilla garden, the first thing you want to do is find a good spot. It can be that little line of grass that split up two sides of the road, a sidewalk bed, or an empty lot. You want to make sure there’s good sunlight and decent soil. If the soil ain’t good, but you wanna do stuff there, I’d recommend researching how to rehabilitate it. Obviously, that’s more work, though.

Once you have your target spot, you’ll need your tools and plants. Some basic things will be gloves, a trowel, a water source (like a can or hose), and plants/seeds. Some nice-to-haves could be mulch, compost, or soil amendments. It depends on what you’re planting and what your conditions are to know what you’ll need to bring. If you’re in a high visibility area, it could be nice to have some clothing that makes sure you don’t look suspect. That’s probably a good general rule of thumb. Act like you deserve to be in the space because you do! If you look suspect, people will think as much.

Prepping the Garden

Once you have everything you need, you’ll need to get the garden site ready. If you need to clear it out, whether there’s vegetation you’re not interested in, trash, debris, etc., do that. Ideally, you can also improve the soil quality with stuff like compost and organic stuff if you need to.

Time for Plants!

Here’s where the real fun begins. Get some plants going! You want the ones you pick to be a good fit for the target climate and soil. Even better if some of them are edible. When you’re planting, be sure to space the plants out and water them pretty well. If you're planting seeds, be patient! It can take a few weeks for the plants to sprout.

Garden Tending

Now that you have a garden going, it’s time to keep it up. You want to water them regularly and watch out for any invasives or weeds that could crowd out your plants. You might also have to add additional amendments to the soil, to keep the plants happy. Try to make sure to think about and account for issues in the garden. Whether that’s nonhuman neighbors or mean vandals, you want to try to think of ways to uphold the values of the project while protecting its continued existence.

Permablitzing

I also want to touch on some more specific types of guerrilla gardening. Firstly, let’s talk about permablitzing.

Permablitizing is a portmanteau between permaculture and blitzing. Permaculture is a type of gardening and farming that aspires to copy natural ecosystems to create harmonious gardens that are self-sustaining. It generally will include a mix of native, edible, and wildlife-attracting plants. Permablitzing is taking that permaculture idea and rallying the community to create a permaculture garden in a single day.

It looks a little something like this: volunteers collectively design and install the garden. They put in garden beds, plant trees, and shrubs, and install irrigation. There might also be compost systems, raised beds, or accessible walkways through the garden. Permablitzing is great because it’s relatively quick, it’s tangible and immediately garners buy-in. It’s more about finding the space to do this and finding people who are willing to participate.

Seedbombing

If you’re not able to work with a group, or you just want to be able to very quickly deposit new plants in places, you can seedbomb!

Seedbombs are small packages of seeds wrapped in soil that can be thrown or dropped onto the ground. This kinda stuff is great for rewinding and restoring neglected or degraded areas. Just make sure you do research! You don’t wanna introduce invasive or incompatible plants.

The basic seedbomb recipe is:

Soil

Clay or compost

Seeds

You mix them together, roll them into small balls, then let them dry. You can just toss them into your target areas. Seedbombing is great because it’s fun and creative while being a great way to un-neglect neglected areas. You can also do it alone or with the homies. It’s a very flexible guerrilla option.

Final thoughts

One of the most important things to think about when trying to enact social change is aligning your ends (the liberatory future you envision) with your means (the things you do to get to that vision). Guerrilla gardening is great to this end as a form of praxis because it allows for this to be realized in the here and now. It helps us realize that we don’t have to wait until people let us do what we think is right. If you see an issue, you can respond to it. Also, gardening is fun, gets you outside, and allows you to be more connected with the earth, which is just so so so good for you. Be smart, keep each other safe, and good luck with your gardening!

[argyrocratie]

"The fear of horizontalism, autonomy, the deregulation of everyday life, the abolition of private property without subterfuge, is inherent to a world whose functioning is based on some being above and others below. It is thereby logical that any attempt to alter this state of affairs be considered a threat.

In fact, in all of the examples I have just mentioned, from Plato to Bentham and from these to the most conservative factions of the French Revolution, the criticism of anarchy and its supposed propagators is not based so much on the fear of absolute freedom as on in the fear of egalitarianism that entails the absence of formal authority.

For those cited, anarchy would suppose an inadmissible seismic equalising that would undermine the social hierarchy, put an end to the “natural” superiority of some individuals over others and lead us to chaos. The anarchist, obviously, could not be more unattractive."

-Ruymán Rodríguez, "Anarchist Identity" (2018)

[needabetternamelater]

[ghelgheli]

In the 1860s, when he consciously distanced himself from his earlier technocratic productivism, Marx was compelled to rethink his optimistic view of history and to reflect more seriously upon its negative implications. This self-critical reflection took place as he investigated the material aspect of the production process unique to capitalist production, especially how material world — human and non-human — is reorganized by capital's initiative in favour of its own accumulation. This is because the increase of productive forces subordinate workers to command of capital more effectively. If so, 'relations of production' and 'productive forces' cannot be simply separated as assumed in the traditional view of historical materialism. The development of productive forces of capital is dependent upon the thorough reorganization of human metabolism with nature in the form of cooperation, division of labour and machinery. In this sense, the 'mode of production' expresses a particular social arrangement of the material elements of production. That is why in the preface to Capital, Marx set himself the task of examining 'the capitalist mode of production, and the relations of production... that correspond to it' instead of treating 'productive forces' as an independent variable as was the case in the preface to A Contribution.

This change concerning the 'mode of production' might be discounted as a minor philological quibble, but its theoretical significance should not be underestimated because it has to do with the transformation of Marx's vision of post-capitalism. When the development of productive forces is not purely formal and quantitative, but is deeply rooted into the transformation and reorganization of the labour process, one can no longer assume that a socialist revolution could simply replace the relations of production with other ones after reaching a certain level of productive forces. Since the 'productive forces of capital' that emerge through the real subsumption are materialized and crystalized in the capitalist mode of production, they disappear together with the capitalist mode of production. In this sense, we need to radically reverse the traditional historical materialist view about the actual relationship between productive forces and relations of production: 'Relations of production determine productive forces' (Tairako 1991).

This is how the establishment of the concepts of 'productive forces of capital' and 'real subsumption' compelled Marx to abandon his earlier formulation of historical materialism in the preface to A Contribution. Since both aspects of Form and Stoff are closely entangled with each other due to the real subsumption of the labour process it is not possible to change one without simultaneously changing the other. This complexity would not occur if the productive forces of capital were simply dependent upon machines. They could be utilized in socialism as before. However, the productive forces developed under capitalism are tightly connected to the uniquely capitalist way of organizing the collaborative, cooperative and other social aspects of labour. If so, the transcendence of the capitalist mode of production must be a much more radical and thoroughgoing one than the mere abolition of private property and exploitation through the re-appropriation of the means of production by the working class. It requires the radical reorganization of the relations of production for the sake of freedom and autonomy among associated producers, so that the productive forces of capital disappear. Otherwise, despotic and ecologically destructive forms of production will continue in post-capitalist society. Yet when the productive forces of capital disappear, the productive forces of social labour are diminished as well.

Kohei Saito, Marx In The Anthropocene

[jingerpi]

communism's #1 goal is abolition of private property. you cannot call yourself a communist if you are pro intellectual property