Private property can be abolished only on condition of an all-round development of individuals, because the existing character of intercourse and productive forces is an all-round one, and only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate them, i.e. can turn them into free manifestations of their lives.
Marx, The German Ideology, p. 483
The word property connotes an individual appropriation of goods, a personal claim to tools, land, and other resources. Conceived in this loose sense, property is fairly common in organic societies, even in groups that have a very simple, undeveloped technology. By the same token, cooperative work and the sharing of resources on a scale that could be called communistic is also fairly com mon. On both the productive side of economic life and the consumptive, appropriation of tools, weapons, food, and even clothing may range widely - often idiosyncratically, in western eyes - from the possessive and seemingly individualistic to the most meticulous, often ritualistic, parceling out of a harvest or a hunt among members of a community.
But primary to both of these seemingly contrasting relationships is the practice of usufruct, the freedom of individuals in a community to appropriate resources merely by virtue of the fact that they are using them. Such resources belong to the user as long as they are being used. Function, in effect, replaces our hallowed concept of possession-not merely as a loan or even "mutual aid," but as an unconscious emphasis on use itself, on need that is free of psychological entanglements with proprietorship, work, and even reciprocity. The western identification of individuality with ownership and personality with craft - the latter laden with a metaphysics of selfhood as expressed in a crafted object wrested by human powers from an intractable nature-has yet to emerge from the notion of use itself and the guileless enjoyment of needed things. Need, in effect, still orchestrates work to the point where property of any kind, communal or otherwise, has yet to acquire independence from the claims of satisfaction. A collective need subtly orchestrates work, not personal need alone, for the collective claim is implicit in the primacy of usufruct over proprietorship. Hence, even the work performed in one's own dwelling has an underlying collective dimension in the potential availability of its products to the entire community.
Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p.50
Among Liberal tenets is behaving like an owner, even towards your own experiences. This is why not behaving like a Liberal individual means primarily not valuing your properties. Or really another meaning should be given to “properties”: not what belongs to me in particular, but what connects me to the world, and what is therefore not reserved for me, has nothing to do with private property, nor with what is supposed to define an identity (the “that’s just the way I am,” and its confirmation “that’s just like you!”). While we reject the idea of individual property, we have nothing against commitments. The question of appropriation or re-appropriation comes down to the question of knowing what is appropriate for us, that is to say adequate, in terms of use, in terms of need, in terms of relation to a place, to a moment of the world.
Anonymous, Call, p.13-14
Ανάμεσα στα προφανή του φιλελευθερισμού, είναι και το να συμπεριφέρεσαι, ακόμα και με τις εμπειρίες σου, ως ιδιοκτήτης. Γι’ αυτό και το να μη φέρεσαι σαν φιλελεύθερο άτομο, σημαίνει κατ’ αρχήν να μην κλείνεσαι μέσα στις ιδιοκτησίες σου. Διαφορετικά πρέπει να δοθεί άλλο νόημα στις “ιδιοκτησίες”: όχι αυτό που μου ανήκει, αλλά αυτό που με δένει με τον κόσμο, και ως εκ τούτου δεν είναι αποκλειστικότητά μου, δεν έχει καμία σχέση ούτε με ατομική ιδιοκτησία ούτε με αυτό που θεωρείται ότι ορίζει μια ταυτότητα (το “έτσι είμαι εγώ” και η επιβεβαίωσή του, “αυτό είσαι!”). Μπορεί να απορρίπτουμε την ιδέα της ατομικής ιδιοκτησίας, δεν έχουμε όμως τίποτα εναντίον των δεσμών. Η απαίτηση οικειοποίησης ή επανοικειοποίησης περιορίζεται για εμάς στο ερώτημα τι είναι οικείο, δηλαδή κατάλληλο ως προς τη χρήση, ως προς την ανάγκη, ως προς τη σχέση με έναν τόπο, με μια στιγμή του κόσμου.
Anonymes, Κάλεσμα, σ.32
It is obvious, as they claim, that the question of what suits me, of what I need, of what makes up my world has been reduced to the legally enforced fiction of private property, of what belongs to me, of what is mine. Something belongs to me insofar as it joins the realm of my usage — not by virtue of any juridical title. Ultimately, private property has no other reality than the forces that protect it. So the question of communism is, on one hand, to do away with the police, and on the other, to elaborate modes of sharing and uses, among those who live with each other.
Anonymous, Call, p.21
Appears in 2 boards
So, the construction of the Party, in its most visible aspect, consists of the sharing or communization of what we have at our disposal. Communizing a place means this: setting free its use, and on the basis of this liberation, experimenting with refined, intensified, and complexified relations. If private property is essentially the discretionary power of depriving any person of the use of the possessed thing, communization can only mean depriving the agents of Empire of that possession.
Anonymous, Call, p.23
In so far as each single transaction invariably conforms to the laws of the exchange of commodities, the capitalist buying labor-power, the laborer selling it, and we will assume at its real value; in so far as all of this is true, it is evident that the laws of appropriation or of private property, laws that are based on the production and circulation of commodities, become by their own inner and inexorable dialectic changed into their very opposite. The exchange of equivalents, the original operation with which we started, has now become turned round in such a way that there is only an apparent exchange. This is owing to the fact, first, that the capital which is exchanged for labor-power is itself but a portion of the product of other’s labor appropriated without an equivalent; and, secondly, that this capital must not only be replaced by its producer, but replaced together with an added surplus. The relation of exchange subsisting between capitalist and laborer becomes a mere semblance appertaining to the process of circulation, a mere form, foreign to the real nature of the transaction, and only mystifying it. The ever-repeated purchase and sale of labor-power is now the mere form; what really takes place is this – the capitalist again and again appropriates, without equivalent, a portion of the previously materialized labor of others, and exchanges it for a greater quantity of living labor. At first the rights of property seemed to us to be based on a man’s own labor. [...] Now, however, property turns out to be the right, on the part of the capitalist, to appropriate the unpaid labor of others or its products, and to be the impossibility, on the part of the laborer, of appropriating his own product. The separation of property from labor has become the necessary consequence of a law that apparently originated in their identity.
Marx, Capital, Volume 1 (Progress Publishers, 1887), p.412-413
Private property thus results by analysis from the concept of alienated labour, i.e., of alienated man, of estranged labour, of estranged life, of estranged man.
True, it is as a result of the movement of private property that we have obtained the concept of alienated labour (of alienated life) in political economy. But analysis of this concept shows that though private property appears to be the reason, the cause of alienated labour, it is rather its consequence, just as the gods are originally not the cause but the effect of man's intellectual confusion. Later this relationship becomes reciprocal.
Only at the culmination of the development of private property does this, its secret, appear again, namely, that on the one hand it is the product of alienated labour, and that on the other it is the means by which labour alienates itself, the realisation of this alienation.
Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Marx Engels Collected Works Volume 3 (International Publishers), p.279-280