When it comes to communicating communist ideas I feel like it'd be more effective if instead of saying "private property" we said "remote ownership" or "ownership on paper" or "economic property" or "corporate property" or "for-profit property"

Cuz like what we mean is "you can't own a house you don't live in" "you can't own a business others work in" "You can't own land others live or work on"

And I think in the 21st century "private property" just doesn't evoke that meaning

@shel "private" kind of has the implication that the property is, well, private. If you're not living in "your" house and someone else is then in what world should it be considered "private" to you

@jordyd yes see this is the discrepancy between what we mean by "Abolish private property" and what that sounds like

i don't think most people think of their apartment as the "private property of their landlord" because "private" evokes like, diaries.

which is why I think a term besides "private" to describe what we wanna abolish would be useful

@pettter @jordyd yes I know but I'm trying to find a way to communicate the idea without redefining words for people in a way different from how they use it every day. We on the left have a problem with using antiquated 19th century meanings of words and then explaining our idea involves like "no community of food means like we all share food not that there's a bunch of sentient sandwiches who are friends" "no private means something different than how you understand it to mean"

@jordyd @pettter Like the private/personal/collective categories make sense as a theory level of sorting stuff but when I'm at a rally of strangers in a crowd I can't say that and expect "private" to make sense as distinct from "personal" when they're very much synonyms to most people outside of politics or business.

@shel @pettter
I expect every random person on the street to have read Proudhon and Kropotkin at a minimum

@shel @pettter Honestly I know Proudhon was the originator of the property/possession distinction but I've never read his works and I don't plan on it. We don't just use antiquated terms we use terms that are inaccessible to anyone that doesn't want to spend years studying these things. And it's silly because they already know enough to understand it all, they just have to wade through a mountain of terminology

@jordyd it's not actually that difficult to explain a lot of these ideas in simple terms ime if your goal is to communicate the idea and not to recite a theory to them or convince them to read a book.