My grandpa is both muttering and burping constantly.
[T]o tell the workers in the handful of rich countries where life is easier, thanks to imperialist pillage, that they must be afraid of “too great” impoverishment, is counter-revolutionary. It is the reverse that they should be told. The labour aristocracy that is afraid of sacrifices, afraid of “too great” impover- ishment during the revolutionary struggle, cannot belong to the Party. Otherwise the dictatorship is impossible, especially in West-European countries."
— V.I. Lenin, Speech on the Terms of Admission to the Communist International, July 30, 1920. (via brown-eggs)
Anonymous asked: So basically, you're saying that I will have to share my shirt in socialism/communism.
Not necessarily but you will probably have to make sacrifices including in the realm of what possessions you have access to as the productive forces are redistributed globally and relations of production begin to shift. My point is that there is nothing “personal” about so-called “personal property,” as those goods can’t get to you without social processes, social processes that will necessarily change during socialism.
I don’t see the use in trying to “soften” our call for the abolition of private property by making a distinction for so-called “personal property” because for the proletariat at large, it doesn’t really matter because they don’t have anything anyway. For the working class in imperialist centers it is counter-productive (or as Lenin put it, outright counter-revolutionary) because it is meant to convince First World workers that they will not have to give up “too much.” So in neither case is it good rhetoric.