Property, Possession, and Communist Society

This discussion is a clarification on the relationship between private property and personal property in the future communist society.

We will address the question using our method: dialectical materialism. To begin with, we must give a more detailed explanation of the phylogenesis of property within human society. Such a development is inseparable from the development of the productive forces, the relations of production, and certain environmental factors. That is, we will always discuss property in relation to a given mode of production. To do otherwise, to address the question of private property in isolation, would be metaphysics.

Some petty-bourgeois intellectuals, valiant “popularizers” of Marxism, together with certain theorists of workerism, revolutionary syndicalism, and council communism (of which the Gramscian ordinovisti, past and present, are a distinctly Italian example), have believed—and still believe—that taking the means of production away from the bourgeois class takes precedence over the political struggle. Thus, they relegate the transformation of society as a whole to a secondary matter, sometimes viewing it as superfluous. We will show that not only all of this is wrong, but that it is also counterrevolutionary. We will begin with a quotation from Marx. Note that, for us, what was written by our “fathers” is not only descriptive but also prescriptive. This is not because it is the brilliant idea of this or that individual—whom we regard as merely a historical actor—but because it is the result of the method used to study reality. Thus, we said in Origin and Function of the Party Form, commenting on the Introduction to Marx’s Critique of Hegel:

‘“The proletariat does not found its action in history on the ownership of a certain means of production and so on the partial liberation of man, but on the non-possession of human nature which it wishes to appropriate and thus emancipate man ‘which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat.’”

Thus, the communist doctrine is not simply a list of “detailed theses” (on tactics, trade unions, organization, etc) separated from one another or mechanically added together. Even worse would be to make one more prominent than the others. Rather, the communist doctrine is a new conception of the world and of its understanding. How did this awareness develop in Marx and Engels? A very clear explanation is provided in the party text Origin and Function of the Party Form (Il Programa Comunista #13 of 1961):

“It was from Marx’s and Engels’s observations of the struggle of the proletariat that they gave birth to the idea that the enlightening solution was not the real, the true one, and they also saw that this solution was to be found in the proletariat’s struggle. They understood that the question could not be resolved theoretically because the question, the emancipation of humanity, had not been posed practically since the bourgeoisie thought in terms of an abstract man in a category excluding the proletariat. The liberation of man had to be seen in the area of practice and one had to consider real men, i.e. the human species. (Theses on Feuerbach 8 and 10)”

Marxism is not only the theory of the proletarian class, but of the entire human species. Since the bourgeoisie treats man as an abstract entity, it does not and will never be able to formulate a theory that conceives of humanity in movement, in its transformation in time and space, and in its relation to the material factors that determine its existence. Though Enlightenment thinkers claimed to elevate Reason to the only intelligible principle useful in understanding the world, they did not realize that their reason was nothing more than the result of the productive forces developed by the bourgeoisie. Though this is progressive compared to feudalism, it is incapable of placing Man in his rightful place within History and the Universe, which are correctly understood as a totality. Bitter theoretical battles have been fought both within and outside the proletarian movement. These were necessary both to sculpt our doctrinal corpus, which is understood as a monolith, and to demonstrate its superiority over bourgeois and petty bourgeois theories. Still, our “reason” should not be asserted on school desks, in state or private universities, nor in circles big and small, but with actual force. Let’s embrace Gracchus Babeuf’s saying, “He who has force is right.” We don’t mean this as the doctrine of the thug, but to best explain how futile chatter—which is today more than ever spread and amplified through those democratic sewers called social networks—in the face of the necessary and indispensable violent seizure of political power. Such a seizure will not only revolutionize the economy, but all knowledge.

Thus, Marxism is not simply a political theory. While this is not a secondary aspect in any sense, this is only a partial aspect of the Marxist doctrine. Rather, Marxism places theory in its proper dimension: as the phenomenological form of the clash between two antithetical modes of production (capitalism and socialism), which shall unfold their effects on the battlefield.

Returning to the topic of this presentation, the abolition of private property is not a “nice idea” or “invention” of Marx and Engels, but is the culmination of a historical process that started from specific material premises. This knowledge is achieved through a method that studies the movement of matter and (in this case) the succession of the modes of production, during which private property itself is transformed. By “movement” we do not mean the motion of particles, a form of motion, but the dynamic transformation of matter itself in spacetime, from which it is inseparable.

For obvious reasons, we shall begin by starting from the primary form of production. We will summarize part of the Party work entitled The Succession of Modes of Production in Marxist Theory, which was published starting in Communismo #79.

Primitive Communism

The first forms of social organization were characterized by collective property and communal life. In the absence of private property, social classes, and the state, the reproduction of the species and family ties were based on natural relationships, with descent following the maternal line. Initially, the development of productive forces was slow, and the division of labor was based on sex and age.

Family as a Collective Production Group

In these primitive societies, the family was not a mere group of relatives but a work group, where all members worked together to manage natural resources. A correct definition of the family in materialist terms is one that frames it as a production relationship. This is not to be confused with the “romantic” representation of the bourgeois family which is, in fact, an ideology aimed at maintaining this production relations unchanged.

Returning to primitive society, we will underline how the division of property did not yet exist and how the family had a collective relationship with the environment.

Evolution of Family Ties and Family Splitting

As productive forces increased, family ties based on consanguinity (particularly the female line) weakened. In order to avoid incest, the family split and evolved into more complex forms. One such form was the “punalua,” where more structured relationships developed between the different generations. Over time, the primitive family was transformed. It moved from group marriage to couple marriage. This was then consolidated into a family structure that initially maintained collective ties, but gradually saw the emergence of private property.

At first, this happened for strictly genetic reasons. In the short run for a large group, promiscuous mating actually results in gene frequencies remaining stable over time and tends to favor great genetic diversity. However, in the long run, inbreeding creates the risk of genetic diseases, which results in the need to transition to a subsequent family form: the “punalua.” The evolution from consanguineous family to this family form can therefore be interpreted as a natural selection that minimizes the negative effects of inbreeding.

Such a path follows an adaptive principle in that societies that reduce inbreeding improve the health of their offspring and have an evolutionary advantage. This leads to the progressive regulation of marriage.

The development of productive forces and the division of labor will determine subsequent family forms. With the introduction of animal husbandry, a new form of wealth developed. Originally, this belonged to the gens, but it began to pass into the hands of the heads of families. This marked the beginning of private property and assets, in the form of livestock and slaves. The development of agriculture and sedentary lifestyle also eventually led to an increase in both population and available resources. Such marks the transition from primitive communist society to a society in which private property (especially land and resources) became crucial for social and economic control.

We must now specify how the division of territories within a gens arose from the need to improve the productive organization. This followed a growing specialization and division of labor which favored an increase in the general productivity of society. Thus, this should not be understood as a total break with collective property. Since we often lack the terms to describe and understand the dynamics of classless societies, we are forced to use the improper terminology of bourgeois law, that is, the land was “entrusted” to the various gentes.

The Transition from Matriarchy to Patriarchy

When private property (and therefore the accumulation of wealth) fell into the hands of the heads of families, lineage was no longer determined by the female line but the male. This gave rise to patriarchy. The woman previously had a central role as guardian of the gens, but became subordinate. Her main function was reduced to procreation.

The patriarchal family was consolidated as a social structure, and the head of the household held property and authority. At this stage, the family was not a simple work group, but became the nucleus of social and economic organization. The estate was passed down primarily to male children.

Through patriarchy and private property, the family became synonymous with property. The family did not simply include material goods, but also slaves, who were considered part of the familial property. “Family” takes its name from famulus, the domestic slave, and this is no coincidence. The term itself indicates the dominion of the head of the family, who owned not only the land and livestock, but also the people. This marked the height of the concentration of the property in the hands of a few.

Schematization

The factors that led to the disintegration of primitive communism are to be sought in what has been written before, summarizing this while adding new details.

The division of labor and the resulting increase of surplus within a gens and the greater productivity of one land compared to another entails greater control of resources. This led to the greater importance of the gens, and then the single family, within a society.

Trade grew from the surplus product (in relation to the collective needs of a tribal society), which in turn grew from the greater productivity of labor. Such growth favored exchange between different communities, which allowed the acquisition of goods that would otherwise be unavailable. Specialization in trade developed and money was gradually introduced as a general equivalent of exchange.

Introduction of slaves in a society that does not produce excessive surplus, there is no need to introduce slaves into the production process. In certain contexts, prisoners of war formed the forcibly subordinated workforce. But at first, such prisoners were either exterminated or used to strengthen the “gene pool” of the community.

Class Divided Societies

In relation to a succession of modes of production, class societies may be divided into

1. A type with three variants
   • The “asiatic” variant
   • The “antique-classical” variant
   • The “germanic” variant
2. Feudalism
3. Capitalism

Without dwelling on the analysis of each of these modes of production, we will focus on some of their invariant traits (the state, social classes, and private property) that are useful to this exposition and transversal to every class-divided society.

According to Lenin in State and Revolution, the state is defined as “an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of ‘order,’ which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes.” That is, the state is the organization of violence intended to repress a certain class. It is also specified in Class, Bureaucracy, and State in Marxist Theory that the State is “a form of property that corresponds to given economic relations, which appeared with them. The state tends to conserve them and defends them by force even when they have become ‘chains on new productive forces’ capable of advancing general well being.” The State therefore fulfills a dual function: The state moderates class conflict by “abolish[ing], in its own way, distinctions of birth, social rank, education, occupation, when it declares that birth, social rank, education, occupation, are non-political distinctions, when it proclaims, without regard to these distinction, that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty, when it treats all elements of the real life of the nation from the standpoint of the state.” (Marx, On the Jewish Question)

It does so by using its ideological, legal, and institutional strength.

The state perpetuates the domination of one class by another. It does this through its repressive bureaucratic apparatus of judges and cops. “Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another.” (The Communist Manifesto)

The state represents nothing other than “a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” In a purely bourgeois sense, the state presents itself from the very beginning as a true capitalist, the driving force of capitalist economy (the Communes and Maritime Republics which arose in the Middle Ages are a clear example of this), only to reaffirm this role during the full development of the capitalist mode of production. To quote Engels, at this stage the state presents itself as “the ideal collective capitalist,” the centralizer of productive forces and capital.

Statistically speaking, social classes can be defined on the basis of the relationship that specific social groups have with production relations that that class tends to reproduce itself. However, this definition proves insufficient to frame classes in their evolutionary dynamics within the different modes of production. Two social classes dialectically oppose each other, determining a leap forward towards the next mode of production. Social classes are not mere “estate registers” presented in a Linnaean manner. Rather, they are defined both in relation to production relations and on the basis of their historical evolution. Class divided societies present the pecularity of the extraction of the surplus product of one class by another—such as the surplus value of the slave, the surplus product of the peasant, and finally, the surplus value produced by the worker.

Dealing specifically with the role of the proletariat in the capitalist mode of production, we can note that its action is divided into two phases. First, the proletariat presents itself as a class “in itself,” when it is simply a group of individuals who share the same position in the relations of production and limit themselves to struggles and demands that improve their working condition. Then, the proletariat comes a class “for itself” when it achieves political consciousness through the Party, which is a jealous guardian of its doctrine, true class consciousness. The working class “for itself” understands the need for the revolutionary transition to communism or faces the extinction of the human species itself.

Private property, the history of which is what we are precisely writing about, and which consolidates in class society.