Chapter 2: SKETCH OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY -- PRODUCTION
5. Lands belong to none anymore.
5.1. Communism and property rights
In capitalism, the concept of property rights occupies a position comparable to that of God, but among them, land ownership is the king of the property rights, the first place in capitalism, so to speak.
So, what will happen to this crucial land ownership in a communist society will be the greatest concern, but before proceeding to that question, let us organize the idea of ownership in communism in general. The familiar anti-communist propaganda is that you will be stripped of your private property rights. But as you can see below, it is a misunderstanding.
First of all, it goes without saying that complete personal ownership is recognized for general consumer goods for daily use. For example, the jackets and underwear you wear today are our personal belongings even in a communist society. However, things such as furniture and home appliances will be lent out free of charge as "common social goods" or "socially shared goods."
When such large consumer goods are discarded, they tend to become so-called "oversized garbage." Therefore, all of them are treated as social common goods or socially shared goods, and when they are finished using, they are returned rather than discarded at the end of their useful life. In the communist economy, which is a “durable economy,” the useful life of products is set longer and continued reuse in the form of relending can reduce the amount of bulky waste generated. Considering this, it will be understood that it is more rational than acknowledging ownership of oversized garbage in the future.
As a term similar to the above "social sharing," there is "social ownership" that we saw earlier in the section on production business organizations. This is a concept that stipulated the nature of production entities centered on key industries.
This idea may seem like a deprivation of private ownership, but even under a capitalist economy, most stock companies in key industries are public companies listed on the stock market. They are no longer just the private properties of individual capitalists, but is subject to semi-socialized public ownership. It could be said that 'social ownership' is nothing more than taking a few steps forward - albeit not a short one - in the phenomenon of 'socialization of capital' that has already begun within capitalism.
Here, before going into the main issue of land, I would like to touch on the housing issue, which is closely related to land. To begin with, it is in housing that communism finds its ultimate right of ownership. This is because "having" a place to live is a fundamental possession for humans. That is why the loss of housing can almost become a denial of being human.
The capitalist economy has turned housing rental into commercial capital, creating a large number of renters, that is, people who do not own a house and who would lose their home if they cannot pay the rent. It can be said that this is a phenomenon that shows the inhumanity of capitalism at a fundamental level.
A rental house system is possible under communism, but with the abolition of the monetary economy, renting business is no longer possible, and gratuitous lending will become the rule. Moreover, in the case of public rented houses provided by local authorities, etc., it is possible to effectively turn the leasehold right into ownership by establishing a leasehold right that can be leased for life and inherited between generations in principle.
On the other hand, in the case of privately rented houses provided by private citizens, it is expected that the rental business operators who will not be able to earn rental income due to the abolition of rentals will abandon their ownership rights. Also, individual landlords will also pull back from housing rentals. Thus those rented housing will all be taken over by public institutions and converted into public tenancy.
5.2. Harmful effects of the land private ownership system
There is no doubt that it is the landowners - including corporate organizations that own land - that react most negatively to communism. This is because they fear more than anything else the deprivation of land ownership, which is their proof of existence.
By the way, in the collectivist system, nationalization of land is a public policy, and even in China, which has turned from collectivism to a "socialist market economy," the land nationalization system has been maintained as a legal framework, although it gradually has become a mere formality (See Article 10 of the Chinese Constitution). On the other hand, since communism does not have the concept of the state, land cannot be "state-owned" or "nationalized." So will land ownership rights be preserved in order to soothe landowners' nerves?
The answer is "no." But why is communism so negative about the system of private land ownership? This is because of all the economic institutions that mankind has created so far, none is as strange and harmful as private land ownership.
First of all, it is irreverent in appropriating the earth, that is, in making the earth, which is a component of the celestial body called Earth, our property.
In addition, the land, which is a product of nature, is also subject to speculation by adding a price (= exchange value). In this way, forcibly giving a product form to lands that are not originally commodities and encouraging speculation, along with stock speculation, has become a factor in the formation of a bubble economy that is separated from the real economy, and illegal land transactions that infringe on the right to live are also rampant.
During the 20th century, class evils such as the parasitic landlord system were dismantled in a number of countries, while in the 21st century, forms such as the large land ownership system are still preserved in the world, exploiting and oppressing farmers.
Still, a system of small land ownership, in which the large land ownership system is dismantled and the land ownership is divided into small lots, is by no means without problems. The system is exactly what makes land speculation possible, and when it comes to urban planning, fragmented and intricate private land becomes an obstacle and hinders the effective use of land, and idle land owned by capitalist companies and commercial land become a factor in the shortage of residential land. It is well known that disputes over complicated land titles are the most serious of all property disputes and sometimes even cost the lives of the parties.
Thus the aim is to abolish the system of private land ownership, which is the most harmful of all private ownership systems.
5.3. Communist land management system
Earlier, we argued that "nationalization" of land is logically impossible under communism. Then who will own the land? The somewhat sidestepped answer is that land does belong to nobody. It is treated as a product of nature, just like wild animals and plants.
At this statement, there is no need to invoke the notion of "God's possession" or similar supernatural objects. This is because communism is an essentially secular thought and theory.
In this way, even if land is understood as a property that does not belong to anyone, the problem of how to actually manage the land remains. In this regard, even though there is no such thing as a "state" in a communist society, there is a territorial scope of administrative power (this is called the zone; see Chapter 4 for details). A possible solution is the idea that a zone's governing body - the Commons' Convention- retains control over, but not ownership, of all land within its sphere.
Specifically, all land within a zone will be under the control of the Commons' Convention of the zone- more specifically, the Land Management Agency supervised by the Commons' Convention.
As a result, the land within the relevant zone cannot be used, profited from, or disposed of without the permission of the Land Management Agency. In addition, regarding the site of individual housing and facilities of private organizations, land use rights are guaranteed to the owners of housing or facilities (including corporations) within the limits necessary for the use of such housing or facilities. In principle, this land use right shall be indefinite, and may be transferred or leased (free of charge) based on the permission of the agency.
However, with regard to farmland, the aforementioned Agricultural Production Organization collectively holds the permanent right to use (cultivation right).
5.4. Management of natural resources
As will be discussed again in the final chapter, communism regards not only the land but also the natural resources buried in the ground as things belonged nobody.
For example, today, oil is viewed as the property of the state that owns the territory that holds it (resource nationalism). Although, as we will see in detail in Chapter 4, communism does not leave the notion of "territory" as a sanctuary, resource nationalism can be described as a political system of land ownership at the national level.
The interests of these oil-producing countries and the speculation of investors are intricately intertwined day by day (resource capitalism), and by extension, that is also a factor that directly hits the lives of the general consumer class located at the end.
However, considering the finite nature of petroleum and the environmental impact of petroleum fuel, the time has come to place petroleum, along with other important natural resources, under the control of transnational management organizations.
That said, in order to make such a thing completely possible, as we will see in the final chapter, we will have to wait for the creation of a truly transnational governing body, the World Commonwealth.
