No private property.No business.No profits.No money.No prices.No commodities.True socialism.
>>18042933>No private property.*yoinks the funny hat of their head*
>>18044387Personal property isn’t always private property.
>>18044664that's the earliest recorded case of newspeak, and you fucks cannot come up with anything less stupid.
>>18042933>No private property.*kills you for hunting grounds within a defined boundary*>No business.Pretty sure primitive tribals still trade with eachother. Back when mesoamerican societies existed they had bazaars and trade networks.>No profits.>No money.>No prices.All false. Barter, trade, and even payment existed among ooga boogas.>No commodities.Only because they don't have the tech or knowhow to thoroughly extract resources. They still have dedicated artisans in the tribe who make shit and trade it.
>>18042933Nah, that’s not true. Naga villages had some communal land, but people still owned their houses, tools, and fields. They traded stuff, made profit, had markets, and later used money. It wasn’t “true socialism,” just small-scale communal living with private property mixed in.
>>18044829Absolutely destroyed, "personal property" is private property a communist cannot make money off.
>>18044873Except Mesoamericans were a highly urbanized state society, not primitive tribals
>>18044873>*kills you for hunting grounds within a defined boundary*"This is my tribe's territory, not your tribe's." This is not private property in the Marxist sense. That land is collectively owned by the tribe.>>18045089>>18044387>"personal property" is private property a communist cannot make money off.If a piece of property can produce other things, then Marxists consider it private property. That is why a factory is private property but a toothbrush is not.The personal/private property distinction is necessary to distinguish the productive forces of society from its products. >>18044829>newspeakAre Christians gay and retarded for referring to the trinity as 3 "persons" in one being? Should Nietzsche have only used the dictionary definition of "resentment?"No. They're using the word to refer to something more specific in order to make a larger point.
